Can shuttlecrafts go to warp?

[Henoch]

I see the two nacelles on the TOS Shuttlecraft as quite large in proportion to the overall craft size. Could they make a warp field over the ~24 foot craft for a limited duration. Proportionally compared to the Enterprise, the nacelles-to-craft size is similar, so, why not. The only thing the Shuttlecraft lacks is large volume for fuel storage and/or a M/AM reactor plus support equipment like antimatter fuel production and matter fuel collection/processing. I do agree that the dilithium crystal, M/AM reactor and its closed system fuel cycle is the pinnacle of engineering in the TOS Enterprise and probably as small as it can be, so, no M/AM reactor in a shuttlecraft (yet.) YMMV by a lot.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Yes, again, it is obvious that Star Trek has routinely portrayed warp drives as very small. But Star Trek is not the entirety of fiction or the entirety of scientific speculation. It is a tiny, tiny sliver of those things and there is a larger cultural and conceptual context that it occupies. My point is that, in general, it is not "dumb" to create a fictional universe in which there are practical limits on how small you can make an FTL drive. Many fictional universes have done just that, and it is an insult to their creators to call it "dumb." It is, in fact, more plausible than Trek's fancifully tiny warp drives.

I think Trek has balanced it at the "just right" level for miniaturization.
If other fictional Universes want to have different min level "Small FTL" drives, that's their perogative.

But I think Trek has balanced it just right.

I've seen IRL RC planes and missile technology that can go very fast and very far.

Obviously different size and class of platforms will necessitate different power sources and different capabilities, but it's impressive none the less what you can do when you have a limited scope and limited platform and payload to deliver.

 

[Christopher]

If other fictional Universes want to have different min level "Small FTL" drives, that's their perogative.

Of course, but it's equally their prerogative to postulate a minimum feasible size. Deks claimed it was "dumb" to do that, and that is what I was objecting to. I'm not saying it has to be done; I'm just saying it's wrong to call it dumb. There are numerous reasons, both from a physics/engineering perspective and a narrative perspective, why it can be a good idea. Just as there can be valid narrative reasons for postulating smaller FTL drives, though I find that far less reasonable from a physics/engineering perspective.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Of course, but it's equally their prerogative to postulate a minimum feasible size. Deks claimed it was "dumb" to do that, and that is what I was objecting to. I'm not saying it has to be done; I'm just saying it's wrong to call it dumb. There are numerous reasons, both from a physics/engineering perspective and a narrative perspective, why it can be a good idea. Just as there can be valid narrative reasons for postulating smaller FTL drives, though I find that far less reasonable from a physics/engineering perspective.

Deks also believes everything in the UFP / StarFleet should be exponentially increasing in tech capability.

There's ALOT of things that I think he's missing and his views aren't based on reality or enough experience dealing with tech/physics/engineering progression over time.

It's fine to think of a minimum viable size/spec for any platform. As long as you have some understanding and basis on how it would work or have IRL analogs.

Seeing a Small 1 meter Tube travel 80 ly carrying any arbitrary "PayLoad" while running on Battery to power it's tiny Warp Drive is similar to how we in the modern day have drones traveling thousands of miles to do it's job of surveying or delivering a payload.

I've seen modern day RC controlled drones travel really far or really fast or some mix of in between.

It can't carry a large or heavy payload, but it can get to it's destination.

That's why I find the Series 5 Druoda being so tiny to be believable.

Modern Day nuke Warheads are the size of a tiny Waste Basket in the shape of a cone.

I can see future M/A-M warheads be a bit smaller and pack alot of punch.

 

[Unicron]

There's always the issue of some automation tech, or other advancement, being available but not necessarily better than the same system operated by living controllers. Star Wars, at least in the old EU/Legends category, had designs like robotic TIEs that the Empire sometimes used controlled by droid brains. They seemed to function about as well as traditional manned TIEs, but their programming wasn't always the equal of an organic pilot (especially if a living pilot could succeed at doing something risky or even stupid, if they knew what they were doing). So there wasn't enough superiority for them to become the standard version, even though doing so could have provided other advantages for the Imperial military.

Battletech humorously has a single ship that was built to be 100% automated, to scout for new systems, and it disappeared on its maiden voyage. Supposedly people still occasionally sight it, but no one's caught it after a few centuries.

 

[Henoch]

It's fine to think of a minimum viable size/spec for any platform. As long as you have some understanding and basis on how it would work or have IRL analogs.

Sometimes, technology cannot reduce the size of something once it hits a critical size limit determined by physics. Example, Earth-to-orbit rockets haven't significantly changed in size for a given payload for the last 50 years, and are not planned to decrease in size for the foreseeable future (like ~100 years.) Costs, recovery/reuse and reliability may improve, but not the "size".

 

[Redshirt214]

It occurs to me that, actually, that VOY weapon would actually only have a range of 40 LY if you used it's same drive on a spacecraft. It is, after all, only meant for a one way trip!

Re the Workbee, I was going off what Memory Alpha was saying, which isn't strictly cannon of course. As I understand their article, the Workbee can't endure reentry. But you could use them on a planets surface, because at that level the air resistance isn't going to make you burn up. The Work Bee cab is so small that by the TNG era you can probably use a cargo transporter to beam it down to a planets surface! I'm not sure whether or not that makes sense... I suppose if you were building a base or a colony they'd be quite useful in that respect.

The Khan hut being a Work Bee cargo train is a cool bit of info I never knew before, but makes sense to reuse the prop. I had always assumed that Kirk had that beamed down, since he I think says that supplies are being beamed down in Space Seed?

Does the TNG tech Manual say anything about shuttles and warp? I have read somewhere the Type 7 was meant to be able to do Warp 2, about half the speed of Voyagers shuttles.

 

[Christopher]

But you could use them on a planets surface, because at that level the air resistance isn't going to make you burn up.

Sure you could, in theory -- I just meant that that's unlikely to happen, since they're meant for operations in space. Any interaction a work bee has with an atmosphere is far more likely to be from the top down than the bottom up.

I suppose if you were building a base or a colony they'd be quite useful in that respect.

Only if you had nothing more suitable. I'm sure there are still vehicles actually designed to work on or near the ground.

Does the TNG tech Manual say anything about shuttles and warp?

Yes. On pp. 160-162, there's a list of various shuttlepod and shuttlecraft variants. The three shuttlepod types only have impulse driver engines with a maximum delta-v between 12,250 and 13,200 m/sec (an error, since delta-v is acceleration -- literally change of velocity -- and should be in m/s^2). The Shuttle Type 6 can do warp 1.2 for 48 hours standard and warp 2 for 36 hours uprated. Type 7 can do warp 1.75 for 48 hrs standard and warp 2 for 36 hours uprated. Type 9A can do warp 2 for 36 hours standard and warp 2.2 for 32 hours uprated.

However, I'm pretty sure there were episodes showing them exceeding those parameters, e.g. when someone was returning in a shuttle from a trip or survey that took several days.

 

[Mytran]

However, I'm pretty sure there were episodes showing them exceeding those parameters, e.g. when someone was returning in a shuttle from a trip or survey that took several days.

Picard and Data's little torpedo rescuing excursion in Genesis would be a good example of them not sticking to those limits

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Sometimes, technology cannot reduce the size of something once it hits a critical size limit determined by physics. Example, Earth-to-orbit rockets haven't significantly changed in size for a given payload for the last 50 years, and are not planned to decrease in size for the foreseeable future (like ~100 years.) Costs, recovery/reuse and reliability may improve, but not the "size".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine

Single Stage AeroSpike rockets might change that formulation for getting the payload into orbit.

Replace the traditional "Bell Nozzle" with the new AeroSpike engines and you might have a different result, even with Reuseable, self landing rockets.

 

[Redshirt214]

From what I recall the TNG tech manual wasn't required reading for the writer, hence the inconsistency. I'm busily working out the rate of technological change between TOS\Movie era and TNG (in rather gameist terms) for an RP I'm planning, so I was interested in what Warp if any the TNG shuttles are meant to do. I'd given the Type 7 that Max Warp 2 speed, and the Gallileo-V\Type 4 a Max Warp 1 speed which seems to me to be "about right". I'm sure the TNG writers were thinking along the same lines.

 

[Christopher]

From what I recall the TNG tech manual wasn't required reading for the writer, hence the inconsistency.

It's more that the needs of the story are a higher priority than technical consistency. The tech manuals are there to serve the story, not the other way around, so if telling the story requires ignoring what the tech manual or the series bible says, then you ignore it.

After all, no script had just one writer; the entire staff had a hand in breaking every plot and revising every script, even one written by a freelancer, and the showrunner always wrote the final draft to give the series a consistent voice. And along the way, the technical consultants and researchers (including Sternbach and Okuda, who wrote the tech manual) would all get to read the script and contribute their notes, so any technical issues would be addressed. But it was up to the showrunner to decide whether to listen to the consultants' notes or disregard them, depending on which option served the story better.

 

[drt]

I see the two nacelles on the TOS Shuttlecraft as quite large in proportion to the overall craft size. Could they make a warp field over the ~24 foot craft for a limited duration. Proportionally compared to the Enterprise, the nacelles-to-craft size is similar, so, why not. The only thing the Shuttlecraft lacks is large volume for fuel storage and/or a M/AM reactor plus support equipment like antimatter fuel production and matter fuel collection/processing. I do agree that the dilithium crystal, M/AM reactor and its closed system fuel cycle is the pinnacle of engineering in the TOS Enterprise and probably as small as it can be, so, no M/AM reactor in a shuttlecraft (yet.) YMMV by a lot.

In the TOS case, it was still when the production was using the "aviation engine" model, so I think the assumption can be made that everything needed for warp drive was contained entirely within engine nacelles. It only becomes problematic when later productions started using the "naval reactor" model.

On that note, it never occured to me prior to reading this thread that folks probably started to think the TOS shuttlecraft were incapable of warp speeds because a bigass sled was required in TMP.

 

[Christopher]

On that note, it never occured to me prior to reading this thread that folks probably started to think the TOS shuttlecraft were incapable of warp speeds because a bigass sled was required in TMP.

Hmm, maybe. Earlier info is ambiguous, though, I think. The TOS bible says shuttles are used for "intra-solar system missions," which implies sublight-only. The Making of Star Trek just says they're used for "limited exploratory patrols," which could go either way, though to me it suggests some warp capability.

Interestingly, the Star Fleet Technical Manual claims that the main propulsion system is a "classified" unit in the shuttle's rear compartment, with the row of vents on the upper rear of the shuttle being part of it, while the nacelles are just "boosters" -- which, to be fair, is consistent with what "The Galileo Seven" depicted. So maybe that was part of where the belief came from, since the rear vents do look more like an impulse engine exhaust.

The Kimble TMP blueprints do imply that the Vulcan shuttle's warp sled is a new development, though it seems to me that it's saying more that it's new for a shuttle-sized craft to have the same kind of range and speed as a starship, as opposed to the shorter range and warp speed of a typical shuttle. The text says it can relieve starships of missions like personnel transfers and courier runs, things that require speed and distance. So it's consistent with TOS shuttles having a limited, short-range warp capability. (As we saw in "The Menagerie," where the starbase shuttle was clearly capable of pursuing the Enterprise at warp but didn't have the fuel to sustain the pursuit for long.)

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You want a tiny warp drive? The class 8 probe that K'Ehleyr rode in in TNG S2 "The Emissary" was itself small to begin with.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Class_8_probe

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Interestingly, the Star Fleet Technical Manual claims that the main propulsion system is a "classified" unit in the shuttle's rear compartment, with the row of vents on the upper rear of the shuttle being part of it, while the nacelles are just "boosters" -- which, to be fair, is consistent with what "The Galileo Seven" depicted. So maybe that was part of where the belief came from, since the rear vents do look more like an impulse engine exhaust.

The story told in the SFTM foreword pages invites the possibility that items depicted in the manual may be mislabeled, by providing an in-universe explanation for any discrepancies. So, just because FJ decided to label the shuttle nacelles as "booster propulsion," that doesn't mean that they aren't warp nacelles even by the book's own standards, because that could have been something that SF "fixed" for 20th century consumption.

 

[matthunter]

You want a tiny warp drive? The class 8 probe that K'Ehleyr rode in in TNG S2 "The Emissary" was itself small to begin with.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Class_8_probe

The Tech Manual says that probes have "warp sustainer" tech - they aren't capable of generating a wap field themselves but can accept a "hand-off" field from a ship at warp and maintain it for a time until it decays. Explicitly, the Ent-D saucer section does this when separated at warp (or the sudden dropout would cause the two sections to smack into each other) - how long it lasts for the saucer is another matter, but this may explain why Picard didn't see any issue with the saucer making it to Farpoint after separating a few light-years away...

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The Tech Manual says that probes have "warp sustainer" tech - they aren't capable of generating a wap field themselves but can accept a "hand-off" field from a ship at warp and maintain it for a time until it decays. Explicitly, the Ent-D saucer section does this when separated at warp (or the sudden dropout would cause the two sections to smack into each other) - how long it lasts for the saucer is another matter, but this may explain why Picard didn't see any issue with the saucer making it to Farpoint after separating a few light-years away...

Ah, thanks.

 

[Timo]

There are quite a few issues with the "warp sustainer" idea. Most probes are launched at crawling speed, and are sometimes seen igniting a rocket flame after essentially swimming out of the bow tube of the E-D. They travel across interstellar distances anyway - say, in "Inner Light".

Similarly, the E-D saucer is "launched", that is, separated at near-standstill in "Arsenal of Freedom", and is then expected to find its way to a starbase across interstellar distances.

So it seems rather more likely that both the average probe and the Galaxy class saucer have their own fully independent warp drives that allow them to go to warp from a sublight start.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Christopher]

Explicitly, the Ent-D saucer section does this when separated at warp (or the sudden dropout would cause the two sections to smack into each other)

Well, not really, because the saucer would still be inside the warp bubble once it separated. It would have to move away from the battle section to get out of the warp field, so there's no collision danger. Presumably it's more about easing the transition from warp to sublight. (Realistically, passing through the edge of a warp bubble would rip the saucer to atoms from the tidal stresses, but Trek has never acknowledged this.) More to the point, it's a retroactive attempt to justify how saucer separation at warp doesn't just leave the saucer stranded in interstellar space.