Movie Shuttles
- Thread starter gmbeatnik
- Start date
Docking is preferable to depressurizing and repressurizing a shuttlebay, at least in the primitive terms of 20th century technology - so it's obvious why the "dumbed-down" technology of ST:TMP would go for docking whenever it could.
Of course, the movie also shows forcefields in action inside that shuttlebay, negating the need to pump air in or out. So the remaining reasons for not using the big bay would seem to be
1) It's still a hassle to open and close the big doors.
2) The bay has better things to do than take in a two-person taxi cab - say, loading of cargo, as seen.
3) The more docking spots the ship has, the merrier, and the two men can get closer to their destination that way.
Although curiously enough, they don't: Kirk is headed for the bridge, where there's a perfectly good docking port available, yet chooses to dock at the port the most distant from the bridge! But that probably relates to the reason why they didn't use transporters: it's more scenic that way. Kirk would miss out on the experience if arriving directly at the bridge, without going through all the sights and highlights in between.
In ST:TMP, the idea was that all shuttles could choose between going inside the mothership or just docking outside. But the shuttle type intended to be analogous to the TOS craft, the one the heroes would use for exploration, yet now featuring a docking mechanism was never included in the movie - the shuttlebay matte paintings including this design (a smaller version of Spock's courier craft) went unused. And then ST5:TFF showed that onboard shuttles still were of the same basic design as in TOS; TNG perpetuated that to the 24th century; and now the new movies demonstrate continuity of concept from the 2230s to an alternate 2260s.
Timo Saloniemi
Of course, the movie also shows forcefields in action inside that shuttlebay, negating the need to pump air in or out. So the remaining reasons for not using the big bay would seem to be
1) It's still a hassle to open and close the big doors.
2) The bay has better things to do than take in a two-person taxi cab - say, loading of cargo, as seen.
3) The more docking spots the ship has, the merrier, and the two men can get closer to their destination that way.
Although curiously enough, they don't: Kirk is headed for the bridge, where there's a perfectly good docking port available, yet chooses to dock at the port the most distant from the bridge! But that probably relates to the reason why they didn't use transporters: it's more scenic that way. Kirk would miss out on the experience if arriving directly at the bridge, without going through all the sights and highlights in between.
In ST:TMP, the idea was that all shuttles could choose between going inside the mothership or just docking outside. But the shuttle type intended to be analogous to the TOS craft, the one the heroes would use for exploration, yet now featuring a docking mechanism was never included in the movie - the shuttlebay matte paintings including this design (a smaller version of Spock's courier craft) went unused. And then ST5:TFF showed that onboard shuttles still were of the same basic design as in TOS; TNG perpetuated that to the 24th century; and now the new movies demonstrate continuity of concept from the 2230s to an alternate 2260s.
Timo Saloniemi
Yeah, I rather liked the side docking/upper saucer docking for things like the travel pods and the Vulcan shuttle in TMP. I thought it showed a nice evolution of starship design...and as Timo pointed out, shuttle bays probably don't want to waste time and resources for mini-taxis like travel pods. As for the Vulcan shuttle, Spock needed to get to the bridge as quickly as possible, and the upper saucer docking port behind the bridge module was a nice touch to address that. 
Besides, it would seem that the docking ports also had refueling/recharging ports for such small craft.
Besides, it would seem that the docking ports also had refueling/recharging ports for such small craft.
I suppose one answer is that they aren't ''shuttle'' shuttles. The pod we see docking with the Enterprise in TMP et al is like a short-range transport, whereas the shuttlecraft we usually see are more like miniature 'spacecraft'. Possibly there are different proceedures for their use, and certainly they need a 'hanger deck' for full-time storage. The pod probably just drops off it's passengers and then departs again.
So the question becomes: why choose to travel to the ship in the pod, rather than using a shuttlecraft? I'd answer that by theorising that it may simply be the quicker option, and that the time we saw Kirk use one to do three victory laps of the Enterprise was simple self-indulgence on the Admiral's part.
So the question becomes: why choose to travel to the ship in the pod, rather than using a shuttlecraft? I'd answer that by theorising that it may simply be the quicker option, and that the time we saw Kirk use one to do three victory laps of the Enterprise was simple self-indulgence on the Admiral's part.
No doubt the flying taxi cab is a much simpler machine, able to skip a thousand steps in the preflight checklist, and runs at a fraction of the cost in fuel and other resources. Plus it fits between the workers and gantries and whatnot better than the big shuttles.
As for self-indulgence, it's Scotty who chose to use that pod, or at least agreed to use it; if he didn't think the sightseeing tour was a good idea, he'd have recommended taking the transporter (as his orbiting office had a perfectly working one).
If Kirk was all business, he could have beamed directly from Starfleet HQ to the Enterprise and ordered Scotty to get there ASAP by whatever means, too. But he chose to beam to Scotty's office for the interrogation, which probably adequately prepared Scotty for what was coming, and prompted him to arrange for the soothing tour...
Timo Saloniemi
I don't think there is any reason to think you need two platforms in that era. Especially not "still", because there was no such requirement in TOS a decade or two earlier!
If Kirk has the ability to beam to Scotty's office, he should have the ability to beam to the bridge of his ship, too. But he doesn't really want to go to the ship via transporter - he wants to beam to Scotty so that he can bitch and moan about all the ways Scotty isn't coping with the unscheduled scrambling.
Tio Saloniemi
If Kirk has the ability to beam to Scotty's office, he should have the ability to beam to the bridge of his ship, too. But he doesn't really want to go to the ship via transporter - he wants to beam to Scotty so that he can bitch and moan about all the ways Scotty isn't coping with the unscheduled scrambling.
Tio Saloniemi
Those side ports should be usable for docking with a starbase (to move large numbers of personnel like we saw in TNG:11001001)
Maybe not the one behind the bridge so much, but possible.
Maybe not the one behind the bridge so much, but possible.
FWIW, the ship sprouted a dedicated gangway for that very purpose the same time the docking ports first appeared. On the port edge of the saucer, as tradition would have it.
OTOH, I once read of a (exclusively French?) naval tradition wherein taking aboard a high-ranking visitor from the port side, the "vulgar side" through which the sailors, hookers and goats embarked, was considered an insult, especially if the arrival was by boat. Any data on that?
Timo Saloniemi
OTOH, I once read of a (exclusively French?) naval tradition wherein taking aboard a high-ranking visitor from the port side, the "vulgar side" through which the sailors, hookers and goats embarked, was considered an insult, especially if the arrival was by boat. Any data on that?
Timo Saloniemi
Yeah, in TNG they docked starbase-to-saucer edge, but I'm not sure the E-D had ports on the side like the E-refit.
All I can say is, the French have some strange traditions, so that could very well be true.
All I can say is, the French have some strange traditions, so that could very well be true.
Did they? The gangway tube in "11001001" (reused for "Remember Me") goes to the neck where there is a docking port on the model. In "Emissary", the DS9 upper docking arm touches the E-D neck, too.
http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x15/11001001_hd_040.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x01/emissary167.jpg
DS9 does feature scenes of (incredibly tiny-looking) Nebula class ships hovering with their saucer edges right next to a lower docking pylon. Is that supposed to be docking? And then there's that Miranda shoving her bow against an outer rim docking port in "Way of the Warrior" - in the scene, the Venture appears to be docked by her rim to an upper pylon. But technically, DS9 isn't a starbase.
Timo Saloniemi
Huh, maybe I'm thinking of the nuEnterprse?
I guess if the Nebula class has docking ports on the saucer, so would the Galaxy class.
Some Galaxy class blueprints are showing (utility) docking ports on the top of the saucer, left & right of the bridge module.
Then there are the deck 25 docking ports you pointed out, which I seem to have forgotten about.
I guess if the Nebula class has docking ports on the saucer, so would the Galaxy class.
Some Galaxy class blueprints are showing (utility) docking ports on the top of the saucer, left & right of the bridge module.
Then there are the deck 25 docking ports you pointed out, which I seem to have forgotten about.
This would seem to be the best choice for why they didn't fly in to the hangar deck, why they didn't choose a primary hull docking isn't known (maybe there was scheduled in-bound traffic destined for those ports).
Or all the wiring hadn't been installed yet. Or perhaps there wasn't sufficient clearance within the dockyard framework to fly above the top of the saucer?
Frankly, I think Scotty arranged for that, too. He had scheduled a flight to his own destination, Engineering, for which the lowermost docking port was the most convenient - but he had done so because he wanted to give Kirk the best possible tour, in- and outside the ship (even if the inside part only involved a maximally long turbolift ride).
Timo Saloniemi
Frankly, I think Scotty arranged for that, too. He had scheduled a flight to his own destination, Engineering, for which the lowermost docking port was the most convenient - but he had done so because he wanted to give Kirk the best possible tour, in- and outside the ship (even if the inside part only involved a maximally long turbolift ride).
Timo Saloniemi
Canonically, we don't know. But Probert did create a matte painting or two showing his "Vulcan style" shuttlecraft sitting in the hangar, and those had the same style of docking adapter. Although they had separate side doors, too.
In terms of speculation, having the doors slide out of the way might be easily achieved without any active machinery in the walls. For all we know, the walls simply have the appropriate slots, not any sort of dedicated grabbing machinery. And the two semicircles just slide out through those slots on the sides of the docking cylinder, riding on magnetic rails at waist height, until they dangle outside the cylinder touching it at those waist-height anchor points only. (Although additional rails emerging above and below to better support the doors would not be out of the question, either.)
Alternatively, the cylinder has hinges, and can simply be swung to the side (or perhaps up) as needed.
Timo Saloniemi
In terms of speculation, having the doors slide out of the way might be easily achieved without any active machinery in the walls. For all we know, the walls simply have the appropriate slots, not any sort of dedicated grabbing machinery. And the two semicircles just slide out through those slots on the sides of the docking cylinder, riding on magnetic rails at waist height, until they dangle outside the cylinder touching it at those waist-height anchor points only. (Although additional rails emerging above and below to better support the doors would not be out of the question, either.)
Alternatively, the cylinder has hinges, and can simply be swung to the side (or perhaps up) as needed.
Timo Saloniemi
I'd think the pod would have to be docked to a port for the doors to open, unless the pilot activated an override sequence, like if it had to land somewhere out of the ordinary.
But since it's a starbase to ship travel pod, would it even be able to land on a planet? It might not have enough thrusters for gravity.
But since it's a starbase to ship travel pod, would it even be able to land on a planet? It might not have enough thrusters for gravity.
I'd never have thought a workbee could land on a planet, either - but intriguingly, Khan's hut in ST2 is a complete workbee "cargo train" rig, with all the usual tiny thrusters attached to the truss. Are we to believe it landed on the Class M Ceti Alpha V on those thrusters (and possible associated antigravs)? Or was the spine with the thrusters just the most convenient attachment point for some heavy-duty antigravs or parachutes that would not be available to the average workbee?
Could go either way. The travel pod might be a) vacuum-only and b) by virtue of (lack of) propulsive power, incapable of either landing on planets or even moving at sufficiently high acceleration to reach the Moon let alone any more distant targets in meaningful time. Or then it's just a funnily shaped standard shuttlecraft. After all, many of those have extremely little machinery space, and most of that probably goes to their warp engines anyway.
Timo Saloniemi
Could go either way. The travel pod might be a) vacuum-only and b) by virtue of (lack of) propulsive power, incapable of either landing on planets or even moving at sufficiently high acceleration to reach the Moon let alone any more distant targets in meaningful time. Or then it's just a funnily shaped standard shuttlecraft. After all, many of those have extremely little machinery space, and most of that probably goes to their warp engines anyway.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
