Although not a technical issue one question still unanswered is regarding the rationale behind the registry numbering of the
Enterprise’s shuttlecraft.
If we accepted the initial idea that is referenced in
The Making Of Star Trek that the
Enterprise is supposed to have seven such vehicles then the numbering makes sense with the
Galileo being
NCC-1701/7. However somewhere along the way someone reasoned that it was rather very unlikely that the
Enterprise could actually accommodate seven such vehicles and subsequently we get a reference to how many shuttlecraft are carried aboard a
Constitution-class starship—namely the
U.S.S. Exeter in “The Omega Glory”—stating that “all four shuttlecraft” are still aboard. If indeed the
Exeter is pretty much exactly like the
Enterprise than this is an appreciated and telling bit of information because it raises the question of how could the
Galileo have the registry
NCC-1701/7 when there are supposed to be only four shuttlecraft aboard.
Well here’s a thought. Perhaps the higher registry reflects the fact that shuttlecraft have been lost over the years (such as we’ve actually witnessed in TOS) and each one replaced with a vehicle having a numerically higher registry.
My thinking could go like this. When the Class F were introduced perhaps the
Enterprise was first assigned maybe two such vehicles:
NCC-1701/1 and
NCC-1701/2. If we accept that
NCC-1701/2 is the
Columbus then it may be the oldest surviving shuttlecraft aboard (and if we assume there is no shuttlecraft registered
NCC-1701/1 still existing aboard). If
1701/1 was lost it could have been replaced with a craft registered
1701/3. Or perhaps both
1 and
2 survive until the
Enterprise is assigned two more vehicles registered
1701/3 and
1701/4. The practice of replacing lost vehicles with ones assigned a higher registry continues until we’re in the early part of the five-year voyage and we have the
Galileo NCC-1701/7, which is subsequently lost in “The Galileo Seven.” Thus up until that point we could reason that over the years since the vehicles were first introduced the
Enterprise has replaced perhaps three lost shuttlecraft. And we simply don’t know and can only speculate what numbers other than
7 and perhaps
2 still exist at this point.
Now a wrinkle arises because after the loss of the
Galileo in “The Galileo Seven” we see the
Galileo II in “Metamorphosis” is still numbered
NCC-1701/7. But by all rights it should have been numbered
1701/8.
We see another shuttlecraft lost in “The Doomsday Machine” only we never learn which number it is (TOS-R notwithstanding). We can only know that it isn’t the
Galileo II because we see it later in “The Way To Eden.”
It’s also possible that Starfleet could replace individual shuttlecraft with a newer and/or more advanced unit for unspecified reasons and those new craft could be assigned the same registry as the vehicle replaced. The replaced craft could subsequently be reassigned and re-registered or even scrapped. This could explain why my Class F3
Copernicus is numbered
1701/3 rather than
1701/8 or
1701/9.
Regarding the
Galileo II I can only guess that for whatever reason—perhaps a clerical error?—Starfleet assigned the craft the same registry as the one that was lost. Perhaps someone chained to a desk got confused and thought the original
Galileo had simply been replaced from the
Enterprise rather than destroyed.
And with the thinking given above this is how I rationalize the following:
Columbus NCC-1701/2
Copernicus
NCC-1701/3
Magellan NCC-1701/5
Galileo NCC-1701/7
It must also be noted that the
Copernicus seen in TAS’ “The Slaver Weapon” was registered
NCC-1701/12. But things are even more confusing there because in a panning shot of the hangar deck we can see
four suttlecraft like the one seen in “Mudd’s Passion” and one of them is also numbered
1701/12 as well as
1701/4 and no sign of the
Copernicus and yet another wholly different design. In that panning shot we also get to see at least
six oversized shuttlecraft crammed into the hangar which we know is an impossibilty aboard the “real”
Enterprise. What we see in TAS tells me that not only was there no consistency in shuttlecraft designs and their registries but also the implication that shuttlecraft are prone to being lost routinely. Because of the lack of consistency I’m inclined to ignore TAS’ take on shuttlecraft beyond later adapting the three or four distinct designs into something more “real world.”
Another possible explanation exists, however. What if the
Enterprise carries service craft (similar to the workbees seen in TMP) and those also have registries? And what if those workpods were numbered
1701/1,
1701/2 and
1702/3, or even simply
1,
2 and
3? Then you could have four shuttlecraft registered
1701/4,
1701/5,
1701/6 and
1701/7. This supports the idea of seeing the
Galileio II with the same registry as the previously destroyed
Galileo.
I have a problem with this, though, for two reasons. Firstly, I can understand giving a shuttlecraft, a vehicle designed to operate independently at greatly extended range from the mothership (particularly with warp capability), its own registry because it is effectively a compact sized starship. But why would you give a flight registry to a workpod, a craft that is basically the equivalent of a flying forklift? And secondly if we accept the conjectured registry of
1701/2 assigned to the
Columbus and
1701/3 assigned to the
Copernicus (reflecting the
Copernicus 3 seen in TFF) then it thoroughly derails this approach.
From my perspective my former rationale seems more likely than the latter explanation. I also think it seems more “real world."
It would be nice if some archival Matt Jefferies’ document would surface that just happened to list proposed shuttlecraft names and registries he had had in mind, similar to the list of proposed starship names given in
The Making Of Star Trek. Barring that we can only speculate.
)
