I'm wondering why the animators of the new shuttle footage did not animate the bussard collectors on the engines? I know that the original shuttle obviously did not have them, but that probably had more to do with the limits of the model. They gave the shuttle retractable landing gear so I'm wondering why they did not light up the bussards. The engines on shuttles usually mirror the engines on the main ship.
TOS-R shuttle craft question
- Thread starter Gotham Central
- Start date
There's always been a "wondering" about the design of the TOS shuttle, since the nacelles are part of the warp drive on a starship, and the TOS shuttles didn't have warp drive.
Who knows what those "pods" really were/are, or what they do? Might be something else entirely the designers made in the nacelle shape to match the ship for appearance sake only.
Who knows what those "pods" really were/are, or what they do? Might be something else entirely the designers made in the nacelle shape to match the ship for appearance sake only.
Thats actually a point of contention as its very obvious SOME shuttles did have warp drive, as it would have been impossible for say Kirk in the Starbase 11 shuttle to have pursued the Enterprise like he did.
Indeed, it should be noted that the TOS shuttles were never said to have warp drive, but also never said NOT to have it, either. It's all open to conjecture and debate.
The same goes for TNG shuttles. And in both cases, the argument can be made that the plots never require the shuttles to be warp-incapable, but they sometimes do require the shuttles to be warp-capable.
Also, VOY later explicitly reveals that some of those TNG shuttles indeed were and are warp-capable. It would be rather strange for some shuttles to have warp and others not to, when all are of roughly the same size and all have roughly the same sort of engine nacelles and otherwise closely related designs.
But in theory, we could argue that warp engines are expensive, and that factories in TOS churned out thousands of generic shuttles but only equipped a select few of those with actual warp coils inside the nacelles. It's just that no Star Trek story (excluding ENT) really requires an undamaged shuttlecraft to be incapable of warp.
Timo Saloniemi
The same goes for TNG shuttles. And in both cases, the argument can be made that the plots never require the shuttles to be warp-incapable, but they sometimes do require the shuttles to be warp-capable.
Also, VOY later explicitly reveals that some of those TNG shuttles indeed were and are warp-capable. It would be rather strange for some shuttles to have warp and others not to, when all are of roughly the same size and all have roughly the same sort of engine nacelles and otherwise closely related designs.
But in theory, we could argue that warp engines are expensive, and that factories in TOS churned out thousands of generic shuttles but only equipped a select few of those with actual warp coils inside the nacelles. It's just that no Star Trek story (excluding ENT) really requires an undamaged shuttlecraft to be incapable of warp.
Timo Saloniemi
I agree that they obviously were warp-capable. As to bussard collectors... Probably unneeded at the ranges they traveled. Bussard ramscoops exist to collect stray hydrogen for fuel, which is only necessary when you're travelling too far to carry your own. When travelling longer distances, refer to the 'warp sled' that Spock's shuttlecraft attached to in TMP.
We don't really know what the bussards are for, canonically. They are so omnipresent on the various starships that they appear more vital than mere "additional fuel source" devices. Plus they are always in the engine nacelles, which is an odd place for a fuel scoop.
Perhaps scooping up of hydrogen is vital for smooth warp travel, in the "clearing the path" sense rather than the "getting more fuel" sense? Perhaps a starship cannot go to warp unless there's both a deflector beam of some sort (provided by a big disk or then by other means), and a scoop in front of each row of warp coils?
We have seen few shuttles that would lack the ramscoops altogether. The ST5:TFF shuttle didn't seem to have any "windows" in front of her nacelles, the TNG Type shuttle had very tiny ones, and the TNG shuttlepod had none, while the medium Chaffee and the small shuttlepods from DS9 had cowlings instead of nacelles; all the other types have featured some sort of red glow at the nacelle bows, typically very prominently.
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps scooping up of hydrogen is vital for smooth warp travel, in the "clearing the path" sense rather than the "getting more fuel" sense? Perhaps a starship cannot go to warp unless there's both a deflector beam of some sort (provided by a big disk or then by other means), and a scoop in front of each row of warp coils?
We have seen few shuttles that would lack the ramscoops altogether. The ST5:TFF shuttle didn't seem to have any "windows" in front of her nacelles, the TNG Type shuttle had very tiny ones, and the TNG shuttlepod had none, while the medium Chaffee and the small shuttlepods from DS9 had cowlings instead of nacelles; all the other types have featured some sort of red glow at the nacelle bows, typically very prominently.
Timo Saloniemi
There's a drawing on Doug Drexler's blog (scroll down a bit) by Thomas Kellogg that shows a concept painting for the shuttle sans struts and nacelles. IIRC, all of Matt Jefferies' uber-curvy (and prohibitively expensive) shuttle sketches had nacelles.
I can't help but wonder if Mr. Jefferies was responsible for the addition of nacelles to Mr. Kellogg's design - and if this might be a reflection of insistence that the shuttle should have warp drive, despite whatever the writers' intentions were?
I can't help but wonder if Mr. Jefferies was responsible for the addition of nacelles to Mr. Kellogg's design - and if this might be a reflection of insistence that the shuttle should have warp drive, despite whatever the writers' intentions were?
Similar threads
