Star Trek Shuttles Are Too Small.

[Shaw]

Also, if you can go back and quote the part where I had a problem with a shuttlecraft being a magic flying box, that'd be super.

You said...

"Beyond that, the original point of the comparison was that Trek shuttles didn't have enough space devoted to the machinery necessary to support the cabin, which is clearly backed by the comparion."​

Saying that the shuttles didn't have enough space devoted to the machinery necessary to support the cabin displays you are having a problem with the shuttles as a magic flying box.

As for the first part of your post... are you sure that you want anyone to elaborate on that?

I'm seeing people today (your argument here being a timely example) having an increasingly difficult time imagining more advance technologies. In forty years we are seeing less imagination of what could be and more of people attempting to say that it must be like it is today.

You may be having problems phrasing your ideas badly, but I can only go off of what you've said.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Beyond that, the original point of the comparison was that Trek shuttles didn't have enough space devoted to the machinery necessary to support the cabin, which is clearly backed by the comparion. In the case of the F-22, the entire craft is machinery supporting and driving the tiny cockpit...

Huh?!

The F-22's fuselage--consists mostly of avionics and fuel, plus not one but TWO pairs of internal weapons bays, an M61 Vulcan cannon, radars, sensors, computers... the support equipment for the cockpit would probably fit into a shoebox.

I phrased that badly. My point was the obvious difference in the ratios of things that are crew space to things that aren't crew space. While almost the entirety of the F-22 put towards machinery that allows it to function as an aircraft, a Trek shuttle is, basically, a magic flying room.

Not unlike the UH-60 Blakhawk or the UH-1 Huey. The entire aircraft is essentially an engine attached to a rotor with a crew compartment attached. Or for that matter, try the V-22 tiltrotor, essentially a flying cargo container with a pair of engines attached to the side.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

From no angle is the shuttle "quite a bit larger."

What are you talking about? The shuttle's fuselage is significantly wider and almost twice as tell as the Raptor's; it clearly has far more volume than the Raptor, all internal spaces included. The only thing the raptor has that is "larger" than the shuttle is broader wingspan (long flat surfaces extending out in both directions) and stabilizers (long flat surfaces extending straight up). The wings do not have a great deal of internal volume and neither do the stabilizers. Judging by the diagrams you posted, if the scale is correct the shuttle's impulse engines could well be the same size as the F-22's turbofans.

Beyond that, the original point of the comparison was that Trek shuttles didn't have enough space devoted to the machinery necessary to support the cabin, which is clearly backed by the comparion. In the case of the F-22, the entire craft is machinery supporting and driving the tiny cockpit...

Huh?!

The F-22's fuselage--consists mostly of avionics and fuel, plus not one but TWO pairs of internal weapons bays, an M61 Vulcan cannon, radars, sensors, computers... the support equipment for the cockpit would probably fit into a shoebox.

24th century technology is advanced enough to shrink the entire avionics package into a shoebox-sized module. The rest--fuel and weapons--are likewise miniaturized. If the shuttle has a replicator--which it does--that handles your oxygen, waste, food and water requirements.

So what's left except internal volume, which is only necessary for the capacity to carry physical objects/people vast distances? The F-22 is too small for that. On the other hand, the C-2 Greyhound--which is shorter and not nearly as wide as the F-22--can carry up to 26 passengers in addition to four flight crew.

Out of curiosity, where does the C-2 Greyhound keep its support equipment for its passengers? It's virtually all cabin except for the wings and the engines.

Thanks for saying that so I didn't have to. It's really frustrating to have someone who has probably never been within a half-mile of one of these vehicles telling me (having actually designed a major system installed on the aircraft) that I don't know what I'm talking about.

I was really hoping my "flagpole" argument would have gotten him to thinking about the difference between "maximum dimension" and "actual size." No such luck, unfortunately. Oh well.

 

[Gepard]

Now, now....we can blame TOS for that, too.

My mistake. I thoughtlessly assumed your use of the phrase "building material" referred to, y'know, buildings (or components thereof such as doors), not spacecraft.

TGT

Silly me. I assumed people and aliens build spacecraft.

 

[David cgc]

Also, if you can go back and quote the part where I had a problem with a shuttlecraft being a magic flying box, that'd be super.

You said...

"Beyond that, the original point of the comparison was that Trek shuttles didn't have enough space devoted to the machinery necessary to support the cabin, which is clearly backed by the comparion."​

Saying that the shuttles didn't have enough space devoted to the machinery necessary to support the cabin displays you are having a problem with the shuttles as a magic flying box.

And here I thought it displayed that I read and understood Dayton's original post. Should I have been more clear I was restating the thesis of the thread while I was clearly restating the thesis of the thread?

As for the first part of your post... are you sure that you want anyone to elaborate on that?

Oh, yes. Let's crack out our slide rules and do volume calculations of both craft, and then argue endlessly about how many cubic meters you need before you can call something "quite a bit larger." And then, because I'll have grown to despise all of you, I'll whip out statistics for all of the other shuttles that are considerably smaller than a modern fighter jet in every possible measure. Of course, the issues of gross size are largely irrelevant to the topic of the thread, because the topic is that

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.

... which I've helpfully quoted this time so we're all really really sure that I don't actually have a dog in this fight beyond my original desire to correct a misestimation of scale and, later, an implication that the F-22 is shaped like a lawn dart, and shuttlecraft are perfect cubes.

Yeah, that sounds fun.

I'm seeing people today (your argument here being a timely example) having an increasingly difficult time imagining more advance technologies. In forty years we are seeing less imagination of what could be and more of people attempting to say that it must be like it is today.

That's rather irrelevant. The Trek shuttles (and Lost In Space's Pod, and Battlestar Galactica's Raptors and Vipers) are so small compared to their real-world analogues because it's more cost-effective if 20 feet of usable shuttle set only needs 20 feet of shuttle prop, as opposed to 20 feet of shuttle set needing a hundred foot long prop.

Consider the fact that in movies (with larger budgets), or video games (where you don't have to build a set), or even craft that simply don't have to be built on stage, there's considerably more space for machinery. The reason the Enterprise has an entire secondary hull and two outboard pods for engines, consumables, and auxiliary craft, and the Galileo has small closet to serve the same purpose is not that Matt Jefferies only heard of Clarke's Third Law after he designed the larger ship.

You may be having problems phrasing your ideas badly, but I can only go off of what you've said.

No, you can go off the context. I'm not making these posts in a vacuum, you know. There's no reason to be willfully obtuse and assume that if I'm restating a point I never made, but someone else did, I actually did advocate that point and my explicit statement to that effect just vanished off into the ether.

Thanks for saying that so I didn't have to. It's really frustrating to have someone who has probably never been within a half-mile of one of these vehicles telling me (having actually designed a major system installed on the aircraft) that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Unless you designed a giant cardboard box it's shipped in (and a matching one for a Starfleet Type-11 shuttlecraft), I'm not sure what your appeal to authority actually says about your ability to tell "big" from "not quite as big" as compared to mine.

I was really hoping my "flagpole" argument would have gotten him to thinking about the difference between "maximum dimension" and "actual size." No such luck, unfortunately. Oh well.

And I was hoping my pretty picture would've gotten you to realize that the shuttle was smaller not just in length, but also width and height, than the aircraft. Let me see if I can make it clearer.

If I were to make a box of the same length, width, and height as a Type-11 Shuttle, that box would fit inside of another box which was of the length, width, and height of an F-22 Raptor. Conversely, the Raptor-sized box would not fit inside the Shuttle-sized box, because it is larger in length, width, and height. All three.

This is what I imagined when you asserted the Shuttle was "quite a bit larger."

Now, for some reason that defies understanding, instead of making cogent arguments that, say, much of that size on the Raptor being taken up by the wings and tail, and the body of the aircraft is not nearly so large as the body of the shuttle, you've instead taken advantage of the fact that I only quoted the length of the two craft, and asserted that despite being shorter in length, the Shuttle is taller and/or wider than the Raptor.

Which it's not.

There's a picture.

If you like, you can print it out, grab a ruler and pen and check my scaling.

 

[Marie1]

Well, they're quite chunky given the space inside (plus they have various sizes- I'm thinking DS9, when one had the huge outer nav and the others didn't). So you have you warp drive thats about half of that of something like the Defiant. You have some some bunks, presumably a washroom, they seat between two and four, plus standing room. They have a replicator. They don't have real torpedos, just micro ones with micro launchers... I don't have a real problem. I think they should be small, as they're shuttles, not "ships." I think they're over used, but then again, things like Defiant weren't around til later in ST.

 

[Shaw]

You're sinking fast, so excuse me if I ignore everything else you said besides this...

If I were to make a box of the same length, width, and height as a Type-11 Shuttle, that box would fit inside of another box which was of the length, width, and height of an F-22 Raptor. Conversely, the Raptor-sized box would not fit inside the Shuttle-sized box, because it is larger in length, width, and height. All three.

This is what I imagined when you asserted the Shuttle was "quite a bit larger."

So the volume of the box is what matters to you when you think of size?

Okay... then we must assume that in your mind the Gossamer Albatross (which would require a box of 1,505 cubic meters) is larger than the F-22 Raptor (which would require a box of 1,302 cubic meters). Interesting point of view.

 

[David cgc]

I would indeed say it's larger. Because it is. I'm not entirely sure what you're saying I should be considering instead of its footprint when evaluating "largeness." Volume? Mass? Should I ignore the wings?

Would you say a deployed circus tent is smaller than a solidly built four-bedroom house?

Also, I updated the picture to include the other two shuttles I mentioned, as well, just to see how well the flagpole vs. sphere argument applied to them. I must have some sort of terrible problem with my vision, because they both appear to be much smaller than the Raptor in width and height, in addition to the length I cited, when clearly, this cannot be the case.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Now, for some reason that defies understanding, instead of making cogent arguments that, say, much of that size on the Raptor being taken up by the wings and tail, and the body of the aircraft is not nearly so large as the body of the shuttle, you've instead taken advantage of the fact that I only quoted the length of the two craft, and asserted that despite being shorter in length, the Shuttle is taller and/or wider than the Raptor.

Which it's not...

Actually, I believe the point is that the shuttle is LARGER than the raptor in that the size of a vehicle is a matter of volume, not length + width + height. Much the way you cannot say that a flagpole--or, say, a pole with a large iron disk around the midpoint--is larger than a sphere; the pole is thirty feet high with a thirty foot disk, but the sphere is still larger even if it is only 28 feet in diameter.

So it is true with shuttlecraft. Besides which, the fact that a good number of MODERN aircraft are similarly "flying cabins with engines attached" doesn't help your argument much, especially since quite a few SPACECRAFT have been designed along the same philsophy over the years.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I must have some sort of terrible problem with my vision, because they both appear to be much smaller than the Raptor in width and height...

Width and height is irrelevant to the purposes of this thread. The internal volume of both craft would change very little if you bolted a set of wings to a shuttlecraft so it now had the exact same wingspan and height as the F-22; it would change even less if you added a 2mm diameter antenna to the Raptor's nose, two hundred meters long. Sure, you now need a two hundred and twenty meter box to house your super-long raptor, but the Raptor still isn't any larger than the shuttlecraft since you haven't added much more volume to the aircraft.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer and even I understand this concept. A 30' pole is still smaller than a 28' sphere because the sphere has several times more volume than the pole. This makes the difference between a single-seat fighter plane and a passenger aircraft with twenty people on board, even if both of them have identical length width and height. It also makes the difference between the F-22 Raptor and a Trek shuttlecraft (with Voyager's "speedboat" shuttles being the exception that proves the rule).

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I would indeed say it's larger. Because it is. I'm not entirely sure what you're saying I should be considering instead of its footprint when evaluating "largeness." Volume? Mass? Should I ignore the wings?

Well, just for example, consider what's thought of when looking at naval vessels. Not "length" but rather "displacement."

When looking at aircraft, you generally refer to the aircraft's weight (and often, at the same time, lift capacity).

Looking at the A380, for example.. it's considered to be "huge" not because it has the largest wingspan (though it does, at the moment) but rather because it's two stories, and carries a massive number of passengers.

Now, by contrast... look at, say, the MD-80 aircraft. There are SAILPLANES with similar wingspans to that aircraft. By the argument you're seemingly presenting, those sailplanes are "as big" as an MD-80. Yet I sincerely doubt you actually believe that.

Would you say a deployed circus tent is smaller than a solidly built four-bedroom house?

No. (However, a folded-up circus tent certainly is.)

There are two measures in this case which you'd consider. "Deployed total volume" or "mass." You can choose either one.

In the case of volume, it's a lot larger than that house, isn't it? But not because of the overall dimensions... because of the VOLUME.

In the case of mass, of course, it's quite a bit smaller than that house.

Now... to take this (fairly off-point) analogy closer to what we're talking about... think about a blimp or a dirigible. In that case... what are you using to determine the "size" of the vessel in question? Mass isn't all that useful.... though "lift capacity" certainly is. "Length" is fairly meaningless as well, but VOLUME is typically key there. And that's what we're talking about here, regarding the shuttles (and modern fightercraft).

Also, I updated the picture to include the other two shuttles I mentioned, as well, just to see how well the flagpole vs. sphere argument applied to them. I must have some sort of terrible problem with my vision, because they both appear to be much smaller than the Raptor in width and height, in addition to the length I cited, when clearly, this cannot be the case.

Not your eyes... your brain. Or rather, your thought processes.

Simple exercise here... imagine that you were to submerge each object (as a solid mass) into water. Which one will displace the greatest amount of water?

In some cases, yes, Trek shuttle have smaller displacements than, say, the F-22, and in some cases they have greater displacements. And in every case, they're the size that they "need to be" for whatever job they're supposed to be doing, and still to be stowed in whatever space is made available on the "mothership" they launch from.

In other words, those three criteria I mentioned waaay back in this thread are what drives the size, not some random "they seem too small because something else is longer or has a larger wingspan" argument.

If the shuttle's internal volume (passengers, cargo, etc) is too small to do the job that would need to be done... then "Star Trek shuttles are too small." If there's some issue with real, technological/scientific matters which we understand today which leads us to believe that the supporting systems (propulsion, life-support, control, etc) which the shuttle would require would necessarily take up more total volume to support this many passengers or this much cargo... then "Star Trek shuttles are too small."

Of course, since the shuttle is an embarked craft, you need them to be as small as possible, to allow the maximum capacity to be carried by the associated mothership (say, the Enterprise) with the minimum amount of wasted space. So, if the size or configuration of the shuttles is wrong, you have less total capacity available for the mothership's use... and "Star Trek shuttles are too BIG."

 

[SonicRanger]

Didn't Shane Johnson propose in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise that the TMP-era shuttlecraft use a form of magnetic propulsion, not impulse engines? I'm not sure if Andrew Probert had that in mind when he designed them or if that is something purely from Johnson's mind. The shuttles didn't appear to have any impulse engines, just reaction-control thrusters...

http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/LR_Shuttle-3.html
http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/CargoBay-3.html

... so perhaps that was part of the intention all along, that these shuttles use magnetic, gravitational, or some other exotic propulsion.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Didn't Shane Johnson propose in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise that the TMP-era shuttlecraft use a form of magnetic propulsion, not impulse engines? I'm not sure if Andrew Probert had that in mind when he designed them or if that is something purely from Johnson's mind. The shuttles didn't appear to have any impulse engines, just reaction-control thrusters...

http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/LR_Shuttle-3.html
http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/CargoBay-3.html

... so perhaps that was part of the intention all along, that these shuttles use magnetic, gravitational, or some other exotic propulsion.

I seem to recall Andrew saying as much in something I read, long, long ago.

However... the only real example of this design concept we saw was the Surak (aka the "Vulcan shuttle" which wasn't, if you really pay attention, a "Vulcan" shuttle, but rather a Starfleet shuttle, albeit one based on Vulcan). And in that case, the passenger compartment did, in fact, lack impulse engines and had only RCS thrusters. But that passenger compartment was never intended to operate on its own, was it? It was part of a tandem ship which included a "propulsion sled."

Now... look at the propulsion sled. It included some unique engine nacelles.. and the aft end of those nacelles included impulse engine exhausts (ie, the nacelles had both warp and impulse capabilities... which, tangentially, plays into my "FTL impulse" idea I keep throwing around as well, doesn't it?).

So... the Surak from TMP had impulse engines, after all. As for whether or not the smaller, embarked version carried by Enterprise would have had them... there's no way to really know, because none were ever built (full-scale or model) and none were ever seen on-screen.

Personally, I like the modular concept and imagine that these shuttles, if launched from Enterprise, would have had strap-on impulse engines attached (probably nesting somehow into the side-compartments which Shane Johnson speculatively described as being the "electromagnetic drives")

 

[SonicRanger]

^^^

At TrekPlace, Probert did say that the Surak-type shuttle was intended as the new standard shuttle for the Enterprise (which is why he put them in the earlier matte painting for the cargo/shuttle bay):

Tyler: The shuttlecraft seen in your matte renderings of the Enterprise landing bay appeared to be smaller versions of the cab, if you will, of the Vulcan warpshuttle. Were these shuttles to have acted in the same way that the shuttles from the original series had acted, or were they to performed a different function, specific to the film? Were they essentially Galileo replacements?

Probert: Yes. They were hopefully designed to be the new standard shuttle for the movie Enterprise era. The Vulcan shuttle is actually a Starfleet shuttle, co-designed with Vulcan engineers. That's why it has subtle repetitions of that ceremonial 'gong' shape we saw in "Amok Time." Anyway, my thinking was those new ships would have the same warm gray tonalities that the Galileo-type shuttles had and they would be the new standard shuttle. They would be more squat and smaller because they had to fit within the decks of the starships, but yeah, those were hopeful replacements.

And then about the propulsion systems, he said:

Tyler: What was the main propulsion system of that shuttlecraft?

Probert: Just the RCS thrusters. It had no warp capabilities or even near-light capabilities, but it did have its reaction control thrusters on all corners, so that was the design intent, that the warp sled would get it across space, and then once the shuttle disconnected, it would have smaller maneuvering capabilities for that final docking. And the warp sled had it's own impulse engines as well as warp engines, so it could get it to where it was going.

Tyler: Would the smaller shuttles be able to land on a planet, and then rejoin it again, or were they meant basically for ship-to-ship or ship-to-station travel?

Probert: I envisioned them as landing on planets, (the landing pads on the Vulcan ship actually had reddish coloring from Vulcan soil) but when you're rushed through production to do stuff, you overlook a few things, and the problem there would have been how do you get it off the planet with only RCS thrusters... it's conceivable that it would have its own primary power system in addition to the RCS system, but I hadn't been able to think that far, and it was simply a proposal, in order to suggest that design continuity included within the hangar decks. Anyway, when they did the final matte painting, they omitted shuttles of any kind, so I lost that pitch, but subsequent shuttles emerged through the following motion pictures.

Interview (and images) at TrekPlace here: http://www.trekplace.com/ap2005int01.html

 

[Deks]

I fully agree with Shaw and share his/her opinion on the subject matter.

People constantly try to apply an early 21st century perspective to the Star Trek's 23rd or 24th century.
Which is essentially a no go.
It doesn't work like that.

Which is why I was continuously less and less impressed when I saw just how much the writers dumbed it all down and how some things were portrayed (not just from the technological perspective, but others such as the Dominion War as well).

 

[Gepard]

If there's some issue with real, technological/scientific matters which we understand today which leads us to believe that the supporting systems (propulsion, life-support, control, etc) which the shuttle would require would necessarily take up more total volume to support this many passengers or this much cargo... then "Star Trek shuttles are too small."

Yes, which brings us back to the issue of "where the frak is all the fuel?" Plus other consumables like food, water, and oxygen or--if all that can be replicated--buffer mass for the replicators. If you want to think where I and others are coming from on this, think to your own arguments in the Art forum about the size of the TOS communicators--be it electromagnetic waves or hydrogen for fusion (and matter/anti-matter for warp drive), we have some idea with modern technolgy how much space equipment using that stuff takes up, and there are limits to how small it can get. I just don't see a Starfleet shuttle being able to squash all the necessary hoohas into 1" of floorboard.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

If there's some issue with real, technological/scientific matters which we understand today which leads us to believe that the supporting systems (propulsion, life-support, control, etc) which the shuttle would require would necessarily take up more total volume to support this many passengers or this much cargo... then "Star Trek shuttles are too small."

Yes, which brings us back to the issue of "where the frak is all the fuel?" Plus other consumables like food, water, and oxygen or--if all that can be replicated--buffer mass for the replicators. If you want to think where I and others are coming from on this, think to your own arguments in the Art forum about the size of the TOS communicators--be it electromagnetic waves or hydrogen for fusion (and matter/anti-matter for warp drive), we have some idea with modern technolgy how much space equipment using that stuff takes up, and there are limits to how small it can get. I just don't see a Starfleet shuttle being able to squash all the necessary hoohas into 1" of floorboard.

Oh, I agree about the floorboard bit. But the floor space isn't the only volume available inside that shuttle.

Go back to "The Galileo Seven" and look at where the small-arms locker is. It's in a fairly sizeable "box" which is flush with the wall but swings out (er, well... in... as in "into the interior") This makes it pretty clear that the shuttle not only has a pretty thick lower hull structure but also a pretty thick set of walls.

There are two ways you can try to reconcile that to what's seen on-screen. First, you can try to reconcile the interior set, as-seen... which means that the shuttle is quite a bit wider than seen on-screen. Or you can try what I think is probably more reasonable... reduce the interior space. It seems pretty roomy (necessary for filming) but needn't "really" be that way.

For example, think of how much space you actually have on a typical airliner today. Then look at how it's portrayed in the typical movie or tv show. The set is similar in configuration, but quite a bit roomier, isn't it?

I think that the shuttle interior can afford to be quite a bit more "cramped" than what was used for filming back in 1966-69, and should more appropriately resemble a real aircraft interior... enough space to sit comfortably, and to walk (somewhat bent-over) through the center aisle, with only a single seat on either side of that aisle. Plenty of room, then, for walls quite a bit thicker, even, than what was seen on-screen, isn't there?

I still think Warped9's drawings are about the best "study" of this I've seen to date, and until something better comes along, I consider his work as definitive as we're gonna get.

Warped, are you out there?

 

[Warped9]

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.

Generally speaking if you're going to design believable fictional spacecraft then you really have to think it through in terms of what it's meant to do and what it facilities it needs to fulfill its functions. For TV production when you need a design in a hurry you could very easily overlook something the craft should have yet not realize it until some other story down the road.

I found when doing up my TOS shuttlecraft schematics (yeah, I know, not yet completed in entirety. Sorry) that I was able to incorporate everything the shtuttlecraft needed to fulfill its functions as depicted onscreen. This was primarily because we didn't actually see everything in regards to the TOS shuttlecraft and much was left unexplained. This could also be said of the TMP shuttlecraft as well as the TAS shuttlecraft.

After that it gets dicey because we get to see a great deal of the TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT shuttles and they don't leave much to the imagination. The DS9 runabouts may be an exception. How much of the aft compartments have we really seen? There might be just enough room back there to accommodate the vehicle's requirements in terms of being able to sustain a small crew of two or three for a couple to a few weeks.

My take on the TOS shuttlecraft with a little background:

 

[Deks]

People ... let's keep something in mind, shall we?
A shuttle (like a starship) essentially has most of it's machinery inside the hull walls.
This allows SF to design a large enough cabin for the shuttle in whatever design they want.

Also ... let's keep another thing in mind:
Shuttles in TNG for the most part were portrayed to have impulse engines in the nacelles.
But they are also capable of warp flight.
Meaning the nacelles themselves carry most of the engine components.
A type 9 shuttle also has a slightly extended lower compartment area which most likely houses the mini core (warp or another form of central power source).

As for the cargo space ... remember that shuttles come fully equipped with transporters which would allow them to store things (which are not alive of course) into the pattern buffer for an extended period of time.
Also, you can store plenty of things into the cabin.
Hm ... the Type 6 shuttle was more suitable for cargo transports given the aft cabin area was larger.
Type 9's would have cargo ferrying capabilities, albeit with less storage space and mostly relying on transporter buffers (which could possibly hold much more cargo than a Type 6 buffer can)

 

[Warped9]

The TNG shuttlepods were one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in SF. I found totally unbelievable and very fake looking.

In designing my own original shuttlecraft and starships for my own projects I try to think of working from the inside outward as well as try to consider everything the vehicles need to fulfill their intended functions. Mind you in designing such fictional vehicles I also consider genuine and credible science fiction concepts in regards to how the ships are meant to be operate constructed and be constructed. When scaling my starships I even consider how big their shuttlecraft are going to be as to leave enough room to accommodate them.

In Trek I get the feeling many of the shuttlecraft were scaled to fit within starship designs already established in size. That complicates the matter somewhat. Still, that isn't unprecedented in real life. When designing jetliners they have to consider the size of the runways around the world able to handle the ship. Also the U.S. Navy must consider the size of new jet aircraft if they're to be accommodated aboard existing aircraft carriers.