How many shuttlecraft did the Enterprise have?

[Wingsley]

There's nothing in "The Galileo Seven" to deny the notion that there were other shuttlecrafts in service during the Murisaki 312 mission. We hear Kirk and Uhura talking only about the Columbus, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of other ships either being involved or being assembled/activated.

If we can imagine Franz Joseph's 22-man evac Transporters, I don't see anything wrong with envisioning collapsed shuttlecraft "kits" in cold storage on board starships, either. In fact, if we can imagine non-canon 22-man beaming, we can imagine at least one mini-hangar for a starship's saucer section to serve in the event of separation as well. All of these could have been used in "Seven", but not aboard the Exeter, because there was no evacuation or saucer sep in the Omega IV situation.

 

[Warped9]

One of these days I really want to try doing a scratchbuild since God knows whenever we'll get a production kit in good scale.

There's nothing in "The Galileo Seven" to deny the notion that there were other shuttlecrafts in service during the Murisaki 312 mission. We hear Kirk and Uhura talking only about the Columbus, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of other ships either being involved or being assembled/activated.

True, but it remains an assumption with no supporting evidence. A question is if MJ or GR or any of the writers considered such a possibility.

If we can imagine Franz Joseph's 22-man evac Transporters, I don't see anything wrong with envisioning collapsed shuttlecraft "kits" in cold storage on board starships, either. In fact, if we can imagine non-canon 22-man beaming, we can imagine at least one mini-hangar for a starship's saucer section to serve in the event of separation as well. All of these could have been used in "Seven", but not aboard the Exeter, because there was no evacuation or saucer sep in the Omega IV situation.

Except FJ did base it on references to numerous transporters in TMoST.

Quote from Page 192:
...There are eleven personnel and cargo transporter stations aboard the vessel. Four are the familiar main operational stations, two are cargo transporters, five are emergency personnel transporters which can handle twenty-two people each but involve a risk factor at such power levels and are limited to use in ship abandoning emergencies.

 

[Nero's Shadow]

^^^ Yeah that where I saw the pics for the 22 person transporter. Another thing in the episode the doomsday machine commodore decker had beamed most of his crew down to a planet possible using the emergency 22 transpoters ? Who was to say he did not use the shuttles as well ?

 

[scotpens]

One of these days I really want to try doing a scratchbuild since God knows whenever we'll get a production kit in good scale.

Or you could always try your hand at creating an accurate model based on the AMT kit -- which means totally rebuilding about 80% of the kit.

 

[Warped9]

One of these days I really want to try doing a scratchbuild since God knows whenever we'll get a production kit in good scale.

Or you could always try your hand at creating an accurate model based on the AMT kit -- which means totally rebuilding about 80% of the kit.

Probably be easier to scratchbuild.

 

[Timo]

Sorry, this makes no sense to me whatsoever. We've seen that phasers can vaporise almost anything, walls, people, eguipment, mugatus etc. etc.

Umm, no.

We have never seen phasers vaporize starship internal walls. The closest thing we get is phasers working on the walls of an underground facility somewhat akin to a starship in TNG "Too Short a Season", and that looks like classic blowtorch work, slowly cutting a line that eventually allows a segment to be removed. (That, plus the Remans eventually managing to blow through their shuttlebay inner door in ST:NEM, but since their rayguns were doing such a pitiful job until that point, we'd do well to speculate that the door was finally blown by explosives, not by those rifles.)

In this very episode, we see that a handheld tool akin to a phaser works very slowly on a segment of wall. Sure, it's delicate work - but the very reason the work is being conducted is because the wall resists penetration. It's always more logical to cut locks than doors, and the writers knew this perfectly well. They had also seen their share of movies or shows where blowtorches provide access through a locked, armored door (such as that of a safe) - and this is what they were clearly trying to portray here, in a highly realistic fashion.

Why would blasting a hole in a door be any different?

Some starship doors might not be armored; at least some cabin doors can simply be kicked in, as we see in e.g. "Conspiracy". But it makes perfect sense for the inner walls of Main Engineering be resistant to phasers, because we know for sure that the outer walls are! Why have a wall and a door there at all if it's not meant to protect against access or other threat?

Evil kirk's phaser didn't have a problem making a nice big hole in the conduit in "The Enemy Within", unless youre assuming doors and walls on the ship are made of some super phaser proof material?

I most definitely am. What possible reason would I have to think differently? Action drama almost never assumes that walls would be non-bulletproof: the hero has to go around the wall to shoot the baddie, unless he's a superhero. And our Trek crew try very hard not to be superheroes...

As for the lack of a manual handle, IMHO it makes perfect sense to build Main Engineering as a citadel that can resist hostile boarding attempts. The Bridge is probably another such location, since we've basically never seen an attempt by the boarding enemy to storm the bridge (transporters notwithstanding - and here we had something of a rationale for not using transporters). Any manual handles that might exist would then be of such a nature that Riley could prevent their use from the inside. What good does a locked door do if the lock can be bypassed?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Captain Robert April]

Engineering is a restricted area, meaning that there's a certain amount of extra security measures in place. Like reinforced walls and bulkheads, maybe even low-level deflector shields over the doors, at least enough to handle hand weapons.

Vaporize the doors to Yeoman Trixie's quarters, fine, but Engineering? That's gonna require a little extra work.

 

[ahkyahnan]

Also, in addition to keeping things from getting in, Engineering is also a place where you'd want to keep things from getting out. Containment.

The materials and construction used in the doors and bulkheads might be akin to those of the TMP & TNG engineering blast doors.

Mark

 

[TIN_MAN]

@Timo and CRA, you make some good points, but allow me a few more points before I drop it, since were getting off topic.

Granted, we can rationalize hardened doors/walls on starships, especially in certain sensetive areas, if we want to, just like with the number of shuttles or why they weren't used in "The Enemy Within", it's all good fun. And I agree, it makes sense. And like these examples It'd be nice if we had just a bit of dialogue to corroborate our speculations.

But unlike those situations, in the case of hardened doors/walls we have specific dialogue, in TOS itself, to the contrary, so...

"What possible reason would I have to think differently?"

First, if doors/walls are phaser resistant as you assume, then I guess it was unnecessary for the pinwheel entity in "Day of the Dove" to alter the metal to prevent such an attempt? Nor should Scotty have been at all surprised to learn that they could not cut through the bulkheads?

And this is crucial, for if any structures on the ship should be hardened and blast proof etc. it would most certainly be the main bulkheads between decks/compartments, yet Scotty attemped anyway, what he should have known was a futile wast of time.

And it makes no sense to argue that they would have at least tried, even if they thought it would take a while, since they knew the Klingons would wast no time in trying to take the ship, and the bulk of the trapped crew were in no emmediate danger, their best use of time and manpower then, would be to regain control of the ship. So attemping to free the trapped crew was not a priority unless they thought it would have been relatively quick and easy!

And comparing bullets to phaser beams is worse than comparing apples to oranges.

Second, even in "The Naked Time" it's specifically stated that the reason it was taking so long to cut through was because of the attempt to avoid ruining the circuit/mechanism, not because of the hardness of the wall. The fact that nothing was said about phaser resistant walls/doors, if this was indeed a factor, can be taken as evidence that it was not, indeed a factor.

And finally, none of this has anything to do with my point, which is that sometimes things are done in TV shows purely for dramatic expedience, and logic goes out the window.

You can bet that if a TOS ep had ever been written where it was vital to the drama of the plot to be able to phaser a quick hole in a door or wall of the ship, it would have happened!

That's all I have to say. (I think)

 

[Timo]

First, if doors/walls are phaser resistant as you assume, then I guess it was unnecessary for the pinwheel entity in "Day of the Dove" to alter the metal to prevent such an attempt?

In "The Naked Time", Scotty did manage to pierce the bulkheads. The pinwheel of evil would indeed benefit from taking that ability away from Scotty...

Of course, Scotty's report in "Day of the Dove" suggests he would have tried the very same thing he tried in "The Naked Time": he mentions bulkheads first, and doors only second, decks being his third choice. If he thinks that going through walls is more practical than going through locked doors, he is perfectly in line with the earlier episode - and with the thinking that making a small hole that subsequently springs open a big hole is much smarter than making a big hole.

Second, even in "The Naked Time" it's specifically stated that the reason it was taking so long to cut through was because of the attempt to avoid ruining the circuit/mechanism, not because of the hardness of the wall.

Yeah. But the whole reason for cutting into the circuit in the first place was dramatically clear: they were cutting the lock of the safe, rather than the door of the safe. That happens in every gangster/heist movie ever filmed.

And comparing bullets to phaser beams is worse than comparing apples to oranges.

Why? They both serve the same dramatic purpose - so drama written around them is similar, too. It's not as if the behavior of TV show bullets is dictated by real-world ballistics, either. It's dictated by certain rules of drama that appear to be upheld in TOS as well. That's true "dramatic expediency" for you: things unfold in a manner the audience will accept. This includes not being able to remove walls by shooting.

Where you see inconsistency, I only see consistency, supported by additional pieces of Trek continuity. But those additional pieces are unnecessary, because the general logic of drama already suggests the action we see.

IMHO, something like that should have been used in "Enemy Within" as well to justify the absence of shuttlecraft from a TV show that was going to feature those eventually. The audience would have easily bought "we can't fly because of the weather", for the very same reason they'd buy "cutting into a safe is best done by cutting through the lock". That would have defined the abilities of the shuttlecraft nicely enough, and all other writers could have ridden that same intuition, instead of having to worry about there existing one episode where shuttles can survive hurricanes, or another where they fly through a dense meteor shower, or whatever.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TIN_MAN]

^^Well, I agree "severe weather" is the most plausible "real world" reason no shuttles were used in "the Enemy Within". I bet that had this ep been made after "The Galileo 7" the writer(s) would probably have thrown in a reference to that effect?

And I guess I just figure 23rd cent. phasers are a lot more powerful/destructive than ordinary bullets, or 20/21st cent. blowtorches for that matter.

 

[Phantom]

Well, since no one has brought this up, we do have this cutaway of the TOS Connie to help us:

https://trekazoid.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/constitution-cutaway.jpg

and yes, it is canon, since this is the same cutaway used for the Defiant in "In A Mirror, Darkly".

You can clearly see the shuttlecraft "parking" facility below the flight deck. I had thought there would be additional facilities just forward of the flight-deck, but in the TOS configuration, the plasma transfer conduits get in the way.

The extra shuttlespace and the pass-through to the Main Cargo Bay don't get introduced until the refit, where Engineering is moved up to the top of the secondary hull.

A couple of other thoughts:

During the live-action TOS episodes, the Copernicus and the "super heavy" shuttle can't have been on board. There simply isn't room for them in the "parking" area, and the flight deck is always shown as being clear of shuttles other than the one taking off at that moment.

I am therefore going to submit that the optimum number of shuttlecraft would be 5. Four in the "parking" area, and one on the flight deck as an "Alert 5" or "Ready 5". You might be able to fit 5 in the lower area (+ the one on the main deck), but keep in mind that area is also probably the maintenance facility for the craft as well (we never see one being worked on on the flight deck itself). Also that the center of that area is where the elevator/turntable is.

One or more of the 4 lower deck craft could be aquashuttles, as they don't seem too much bigger than the standard craft. I would submit no more than 3, since it is more than likely that at least 2 Type F's are part of the standard load-out.

 

[Maurice]

Um, hello? 5 year-old necro thread.

 

[Bagofmostlywatr]

According to The Making of Star Trek, the Enterprise carries six shuttlecraft. It doesn't say anything about other starships or what a “standard” complement is.

Yeah, I'm gonna say four shuttlecraft.
And they are numbered 1/3/5/7.
And officially they are designated NCC-1701/7 and such. Galileo Columbus Copernicus and something else.

That's a clever bit of retconning. Now, can you explain why they would use only odd numbers?

So when you're not carrying the full complement, you can park them in alternate spaces to make it easier to get around them for maintainance. Saves on clipped wingmirrors too

 

[Warped9]

Last April I made an effort to put some things to rest by actually modeling in 3D. This exercise along with discussion, insight and input on this board and another helped clarify some things.

As realistic as we ;ike to imagine Star Trek to be ultimately we must remember they were making a television show--they were depecting a fictional reality.. And within that context compromises were made for the sake of production realities like available space, resources, time and money.

It's widely accpeted (or should be) that the shuttlecraft replicas, both inside and out, were all productions compromises in some for or other. And this extend to the hangar deck miniature as well.

Setting aside the original concept MJ had the design we actually was pretty sweet, but due to aforementioned compromise it's a challenge to get a handle on how big the "real" shuttlecraft was supposed to be. From the original drawings as well as recorded comments by those who oversaw building the replica the initial approach was that the shuttlecraft was supposed to have a somewhat cramped interior.

When you look at the drawings for the vehicel in The Making Of Star Trek you can clearly see this wasn't envisioned as a really large craft with room to spare inside. MJ understood right off te was a limit to how big the craft could realistically be and still fit comfortably within the available space of a 947 ft. starship. The onscreen evidence to that original intent can be best seen with the chairs inside the shuttlecraft interior--they were set unusually low to the floor. The reason for that was because the interior set was meant to have a lower ceiling and the still wanted to be able to film over the actors' shoulders. The interior set, including the chairs, were already well along in construction when word came down that they wanted to roof raised to help accomodate the bulky cameras of the day and facilitate filming. It also would make it easier for the actors to move around (today this wouldn't be an issue with the compact handicams available). They weren't going to redo a lot of work unless they absolutely had to so only the walls and ceiling were modified. The interior was also built in separate 4 ft. sections that could be moved apart to allow more flexibility in filming. Finally an aft compartment was added because one was called for in the script.

So due to production realities we now have an interior set much larger and taller than was originally planned. This also explains why the forward bulkhead is at a steeper angle than the exterior hull because it had to be reshaped to meet up with the now higher ceiling. It was simply hoped no one would really notice the discrepency on the television screen.

Now to further complicate things. The exterior mockup was built smaller than originally designed simply because it had to be manageable enough to transport and move about the stage. We have an onscreen reference to "a 24 ft. shuttlecraft" yet we have a 22 ft. studio mockup neither of which could accommodate the full size interior set we see.

The final complication is the hangar deck miniature. it was made to reflect a significantly larger interior than was actually possible within a the available space at the aft end of the secondary hull of a 947 ft. starship. It isn't so much the width of the miniature, but the length is grossly exaggerrated to foster a sense of a vast space. This illusion was enhanced by the set not having a back wall from where the filming camaera was placed. Throw in a small miniature replica based on an already small full size mockup and you have quite a distorted impression of what the "real" setup would really look like.

MJ knew the miniature hangar was a distortion because in his cross-section of the Enterprise seen in TMoST as well as his drawings for the Phase II refit you can clearly see the hangar bay is distinctly smaller than what we see onscreen. The miniature set seen onscreen would extend forward under the engine support pylons similarly to how Franz Jospeh drew it in his tech manual and blueprints. So FJ's drawings are based on the miniature set and not how it would really look like.


The exercise I went through was to come up with a shuttlecraft that looked near exactly like it does onscreen, both exterior and interior, while acknowledging the "reality" of it being accommodated in the space available. And accepting the ship has to be able to carry at least four such craft. I will tell you that if you try to have a vehicle with the interior we see onscreen as gospel you end up with a big vehicle 32 ft. in length along with the proportionate height and width. It's huge. You could fit one of those onto the hangar, but it would be a bitch to get it below and maneuver it around inside.

I did something like this quite a ways back, but I think it's worth seeing again. Here we have a size comparison with a 6 ft. crewman for a sense of scale.

In the foreground is the 22 ft. mockup. Next is my 27 ft. shuttlecraft. And finally in the back we have a 32 ft. shuttlecraft allowing the fullsize interior as we saw it onscreen.

With a lot of mucking around with every valuable inch I reched a compromise of a shuttlecraft about 27 ft. long and with an interior that looks very near exact to what we see onscreen. All I had to do was lower the ceiling to 5'-7" and shorten the main cabin by cutting away the extra space between seats we can easily see onscreen. I also raised the chairs to a normal height off the floor.

You can follow that exercise here: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=263551

A couple of landed shuttlecraft.

I'm still tweaking it, but here is the forward control console lit up. Yes, I know there are some boo-boos that I made, but this is mostly for proof of concept.



A note about the ceiling. If you look at screencaps from the episodes the lighting panel will look wider in relation to the ceiling. But remember that I lowered the ceiling while still keeping the same shapes of the cabin and keeping the light panel the same width. So inevitably the result is that the ceiling will get proportionately wide as it's lowered because I kept the angle of the side walls the same. So that's why the light panel might look more narrow even though I kept it the same as it was originally.

Looking aft with the aft compartment door open. Yes, I'm trying to think of what detail I can put back in the side we never saw beyond the basic layout I put back there.

Many of us have long wondered what was in the aft compartment on the port side--something we never saw on TOS. Indeed we saw very little of the starboard side either (which I'm working on presently). So here is my take on it. This is based on the idea of the vehicle having to support up to seven personnel over at least a few hours to several days or even a few weeks duration (the longer the mission duration the likely fewer personnel on board). It's my conjecture that this area in the aft compartment is what the Galileo crew were primarily tearing apart and jettisoning overboard to lighten the ship's take-off load. My thought is they ripped out (or more likely dismantled with tools) the bulkheads and what they could tear out from behind the bulkheads. My design has large storoage bunkers behind the starboard side bulkhead so they likely threw out whatever might have been stored there as well (possibly environmental suits and assorted gear). Given that two crewman had already died (Latimer and Gaetano) prior to the attempted lift-off then it's likely the remaining crew could have jettisoned two seats now no longer needed, but they ran out of time.



What looks like a familiar toilet is actually the waste management system. Anything that needs to be disposed of (besides human waste) goes into this receptacle that seals tightly before disposing of the contents. A proccessing and recycling system reduces the materiel to its most basic elements and recycles whatever possible into usable elements. If there is anything that cannot safely be recycled then it is either placed into a temporary storage reseptacle or jettisoned into space via a small transporter.

One could also add a form of retractable curtain for additional privacy on the port side of the compartment.

Although it was never explained on TOS the food and matter processing system had to have been quite similar to what was seen on TNG only it was done with the dispensing receptacle covered with a panel. It is effectively a compact transporter system that takes basic elements and rearranges them into new forms. For something like the shuttlecraft which would have a much less extensive system than the Enterprise the processing system is primarily for a "limited" selection of food and beverages and possible a limited number of other things. By "limited" I mean most likely in comparison to the extensive resources of the Enterprise while it would be heaven compared to what astronausts must sustain themselves with today.

 

[Warped9]

The final piece of the puzzue is to model the hangar bay itsel and fit the 27 ft. shuttlecraft into it. The approach is to take the 947 ft. starship and build a hangar that fits into it and reflect what MJ drew in his cross-section based on his understanding of what it would most likely look like for "real."

Here is an orthographic view looking aft with the forward walls removed.

So here is where we stand. I've taken the service deck itself as far as I'm comfortable with for now because it's essentially part of a proof of concept. I've added a few bits of machinery, but please don't ask me what they do because I haven't a clue. I can only say that they probably don't do what their appearance might suggest. (-:





The flight deck has been tweaked a bit although it might be hard to spot. The control towers have each been moved inboard 6 ins. because I thought they looked set back a wee bit too far. And studying the photos of the miniature set it does look like they are a bit more inboard than the towers of the observation level.



There are other differences between this and what we saw onscreen. The observation deck onscreen was very brightly lit from within--unrealistically so although it served its purpose. More realistically, though, if they were that bright as seen from outside it would have been painfully bright for anyone on the observation level. In "The Conscience Of The King" the lighting of the observation deck was much more subdued even accounting that it appeared to be suggested that the lighting was meant to reflect evening or night time hours aboard ship. So the lighting for daytime hours should be brighter. As is I've lighted the deck in a more subdued way and with coloured lighting as befits what we often saw in TOS. As an alternative I could brighten the observation deck, but it would never appear as bright as it did in TOS' miniature set.

Another small tweak I added was some lighting in the alcoves. Onscreen the miniature set was very brightly lighted so it tended to fill the alcoves with sufficient light to make out some detail. On my model where I'm relying soley on realistic overhead lighting the alcoves are cast into shadow largely because of the overhanging observation deck. To conteract this I chose to add a bit of overhead lighting to the alcoves to bring them out a bit more.

The bottom image of the flight deck is also a bit of a cheat to somewhat emulate what we saw onscreen. I've widened the camera's field of view a bit (from 35 to 45 degrees) and after removing the forward wall I've stretched the observation deck on both sides well beyond where they actually end.

An angle we never saw.




There are things we see on television (and in film) that are production compromises because their primary intent is to convey an idea rather than an exact representation of a reality. But my little project here was to show what we saw onscreen would really look like if it were real and sized correctly to fit where it's supposed to go, do what we saw it do and be used in the manner we saw it used.

Another view.

Pretty much the final form for the flight deck. I can't think of what else could need to be added.

What thise whole exercise proved out for me is the onscreen reference of four shuttlecraft is workable with a 27 ft. vehicle. The one variant I included (mostly out of curiosity) was to allow for a bit of extra wriggle room, but it's the same width and height as the Class F. A 32 ft. Class F would be huge and four of them would be very unlikely to fit within the available space. It also argues against a standard complement of six shuttlecraft. To hold more craft than the four you'd have to cram them in on the flight deck and that would be only for an emergency circumstance.

 

[Phantom]

Um, hello? 5 year-old necro thread.

Sorry...I bunny trailed into the thread and didn't note the timestamps.

At least I added something new, so it isn't an empty "bump"...

 

[Maurice]

Those pix too big (re the board guidelines), forcing a lot of readers to scroll left and right to read the text.

 

[Phantom]

Warped9, with a squint and a wiggle is it possible to fit the forward parking bays shown in the cutaway into your maintenance deck? Or is there just not enough room?

 

[BillJ]

How many shuttlecraft did the Enterprise have?

However many any given plot requires.