At what size point do you transition from being a Shuttle / Runabout / StarShip?

[Kamen Rider Blade]

https://www.marineinsight.com/types-of-ships/7-differences-between-a-ship-and-a-boat/

So maybe we need to define the differences between a "StarShip" & ("StarBoat" ~= "ShuttleCraft")

 

[Kemaiku]

There's obviously some sort of boundary marker within most Space Faring species / groups.

At what size points do you transition from the categorizations of Shuttle > Runabout > StarShip

Shuttle:
<20m
Atmospheric flight and landing primary design feature
Days of operation
Max 6 people
"Micro" version power plant
Low warp, heavy use of impulse and thrusters
One low cycle transporter if at all

Runabout/Aeroshuttle/Support craft:
<50m
Atmospheric and spatial flight modes equally
Weeks of operation
Max 8-20 people
Support craft level power
Warp, impulse and thrusters equally
Transporter pad

Transport/Hauler/Colony ship:
~100m
Either deep space linear travel or inter-planetary landing and takeoff
Months of operation
Max 50-150 people
Mass production power assembly
Warp and impulse main
Transporter rooms

Starship:
Open ended size starting at 100m
Next to no planetary based flight except when needed
Years of operation
Crew 200+
Heavy output power reactor
High warp and multiple impulse assemblies
Transporter rooms and mass bulk cargo transports

 

[Spot261]

When you design docks / hangars, you generally need to know how big the average vessel that is going to dock into it is.

Ergo standardized shuttle size range or upper maximums.

You look at automobiles today, there are standardized sizes for a very good reason.

Same with Boat classes

True, but that doesn't make a specific size a criteria for classification, merely good design practise. After all shuttles don't squeeze into bays, they are generally dwarfed by them, as are runabouts.

If it fits in it's a shuttle, unless it has practicable living space and in which case it's a runabout.

There are no real world comparisons here that mean anything (nor is it a good idea to look for them), after all we don't have anything which operates comparably to the shuttles/starship dynamic (and no, I'm not biting on aircraft carriers, shuttles don't function like fighters and nor do starships act primarily as launch and maintenance platforms). Equally just because we currently do thing s a certain way it doesn't follow a fictional space faring race in the far future would follow that model.

 

[Timo]

According to Federal & State exams, there apparently are classifications by length.

That's basically the opposite of standardization: the authorities have to come up with a classification system to deal with the fact that boats come in all sizes. Say, there's nothing special about 16 feet for those making the boats - they are built at lengths 15'10", 15'11", 16'1" and 16'2" just as often as 16' sharp.

The same with cars, for the most part - only they need to fit on the roads. But there are specific standards for certain types of car, for purely economical reasons: trucks have to abide to certain specs so that those making the rules can make a buck, too.

There are no real world comparisons here that mean anything (nor is it a good idea to look for them)

...But Trek hinges on things being familiar anyway. And if something familiar can be picked from the nautical world, it's the ultimate arbitrariness and historical ballast. Designations in the naval world come and go, and mean different things at different times; sometimes they exist purely for reasons of obfuscation, even. Yet command of the vocabulary tells the professionals apart from landlubbers; the same could be expected of space jargon in the 23rd century, be it Trek's or ours.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Spot261]

...But Trek hinges on things being familiar anyway. And if something familiar can be picked from the nautical world, it's the ultimate arbitrariness and historical ballast. Designations in the naval world come and go, and mean different things at different times; sometimes they exist purely for reasons of obfuscation, even. Yet command of the vocabulary tells the professionals apart from landlubbers; the same could be expected of space jargon in the 23rd century, be it Trek's or ours.

Errrrrr, yes

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

47

 

[Lakenheath 72]

FYI

According to the okudagram made for the Yellowstone-class runabout, which was put up for auction recently, this class was a type of heavy long range warp shuttle.

 

[DEWLine]

It would be good to have this settled.

 

[Timo]

I gather Starfleet itself would not be in any hurry, especially if "runabout" as a category is a recent thing in "Paradise" still...

How do we handle the split between shuttles and shuttlepods?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I know Workbee's = ShuttlePod class

I'm willing to define ShuttlePod as a small Auxilliary Craft designed to accomodate only 1 person and their gear.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Shuttlepod

Or we can define it via a specific vehicles size.

Would you want to define it around the modern mini van in scale?

In my Head Canon, "Space Cars" within the UFP are defined as <= 5m in LxWxH generally for registration purposes and do not have FTL capabilities.

They have to use the nearby TransWarp Corridor Freeway routes or WarpSled / Ferries to get to their intended destination that is too far to travel via impulse / STL speeds.

 

[Timo]

I know Workbee's = ShuttlePod class

Hmm. Based on what?

I'm willing to define ShuttlePod as a small Auxilliary Craft designed to accomodate only 1 person and their gear.

Except the TNG one accommodates three easily enough. And while it is sometimes claimed to lack warp, its DS9 equivalents appear to have a warp drive in "Destiny" even if they lack a warp core in "The Sound of Her Voice".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Hmm. Based on what?

Size

Except the TNG one accommodates three easily enough. And while it is sometimes claimed to lack warp, its DS9 equivalents appear to have a warp drive in "Destiny" even if they lack a warp core in "The Sound of Her Voice".

Timo Saloniemi

Then let's define it based on size.

<= 5.0 meters in LxWxH dimensions, how's that?

 

[Timo]

I don't think there's much call for simplifying these things, is all. Looking at a size range only, we could have forklifts, compact cars, tankettes and racing motorcycles, say. Starfleet might be even more diverse.

Shuttlepods, work pods, inspection pods and ion pods might all be their own thing, doing their own separate jobs of shuttling, working, inspecting and, umm, reading on the plates. Runabouts and shuttles could be separated functionally rather than by size or performance, too: runabouts run about, shuttles shuttle between A and B. Etc.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I think powerplant and crew accommodations are likely to be the main differentiating point between runabouts and shuttles. Shuttles appear to have a single powerplant (a limited duration warp engine per the TNG:TM) and typically have a single cockpit/passenger area set inside a semi-fixed configuration hull, though a partition can be raised between the sections if needed on some models), whereas the runabout is specifically constructed of multiple independent modules and has a full extended-duration warp core similar to (though slower) than starship's.

 

[STR]

There's obviously some sort of boundary marker within most Space Faring species / groups.

At what size points do you transition from the categorizations of Shuttle > Runabout > StarShip

Runabouts are just large shuttles. No permanent posted crew and are intermittently operated for finite periods.

Starships carry multiple shifts of crews for 24/7 manned operations and are capable of sustaining such operations for an indefinite period of time.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Runabouts are just large shuttles.

I'm not sure that's exactly true. However...

No permanent posted crew and are intermittently operated for finite periods.

Starships carry multiple shifts of crews for 24/7 manned operations and are capable of sustaining such operations for an indefinite period of time.

I basically agree with this.

In naval terms, shuttles would be either helos or RHIBs, strictly for a-to-b travel for the most part. Whereas runabouts are more like the larger lifeboats used by some coastguards, capable of being used for a resonable period of time, but not designed to be lived on or operated medium-term away from base.

 

[STR]

I'm not sure that's exactly true. However...



I basically agree with this.

In naval terms, shuttles would be either helos or RHIBs, strictly for a-to-b travel for the most part. Whereas runabouts are more like the larger lifeboats used by some coastguards, capable of being used for a resonable period of time, but not designed to be lived on or operated medium-term away from base.

That's a good extra criteria: not only do shuttles lack a permanently assigned crew, no one is expected to live on them either. No crew quarters. No personal possessions beyond what you can stuff in a bag (not like that's as big of a deal with replicators, but still, no hanging pictures). Such accomodations, while not absolutely limiting endurance/performance, would do so simply because people need their space. Well, most people. I guess you could cram a lot of binars in there and be good for a while. Everyone else will get punchy and then sloppy over time.

There'd also be other limitations, like fuel/range, supplies and power output, which aren't obvious to us solely because Trek has generally ignored such things or treated them extremely inconsistently (and poorly) when it does pop up. I'm pretty sure the massive Enterprise-D came close to running out of gas more times than all the Runabouts and shuttles put together.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Shamrock Holmes,

The Yellowstone-class runabout is id'ed as a shuttlecraft in its episode. Runabouts are probably at the higher end of shuttlecraft types.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Actually Kim's shuttle was the Drake, the Yellowstone was consistently refered to as a runabout. An interesting side note is that the Yellowstone was apparently only 10m in length rather than the usual 23m, possibly due to lacking the midships multi-module.

 

[Stibbons]

Shuttles seem to be mainly for personnel or cargo transport and are relatively short range, ship to ship (or planetary surface or station), whereas Runabouts seem to be much more multi-role and longer range. Both seem to be able to be "parked" and left unoccupied. Ditiching the Naval analogies, it's more like a car or truck vs a camper van (dunno what a workpod would be in this analogy, an ATV or scooter?). A starship remains a ship, there's isn't an automobile equivalent.

I recall a definitation where a "boat" was a vessel capable of being taken aboard a larger "ship". Perhaps that's what separates shuttles/runabouts from starships.

Would the Class-J be considered a TOS era runabout (remastered or backwards Tholian ship with extra nacelles, take your pick)?