Shuttlepod Durability...

[Farscape One]

After rewatching "CEASE FIRE", I just came to a startling revelation, something I never even noticed for decades until now.

Starfleet support craft seem to get less durable as the years pass. Just look at this series as proof.

I'm pretty certain this Enterprise did not lose a single one.

Kirk's Enterprise lost one, the Galileo. I don't think they lost any others. (My memory may be off. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

TNG lost multiple shuttles. DS9 lost roughly a runabout every year. Don't even get me started on VOYAGER's track record with shuttlecraft.

But ENTERPRISE seems to fully embody an old phrase that I have always firmly believed to be true...

They don't build them like they used to.

 

[Timo]

Well, Kirk apparently lost the Galileo twice in TOS, first in "The Galileo Seven" and then in "Immunity Syndrome". Or at least the shuttle, while not outright blown to smithereens, was replaced by one named "Galileo II" after that adventure...

If Kirk habitually covers his losses by applying misleading pennant art, he might have written off dozens of those shuttles before having to admit at least one loss to his boss and write the "II" on the next hull. (Or then this was an insurance scam of the opposite sort, and the "II" is the very same craft as the one that survived the Space Amoeba.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Farscape One]

I don't think "THE IMMUNITY SYNDROME" shuttle was lost. He put two tractor beams on it, and I'm pretty sure the helmsman reported the shuttle was back on board at the end.

 

[Timo]

Yup. But perhaps it was broken in the act and never flew again? The point is that the next shuttle seen is named the Galileo II. Did that one exist in parallel with the one that had no II there?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Oddish]

Maybe weapon power level increased on a faster curve than shuttle durability. That might be what Tom set out to change when he designed the Delta Flyer.

 

[jackoverfull]

Perhaps when you rely on something less you invest less in its durability: in Enterprise the transporter wasn’t their main way to get down to s planet, after all.

 

[Oddish]

Good point. If shuttles are what you've got (and on Enterprise, they should've been), you build them to a high standard.

But I think in general, weapons were less powerful as compared to ship toughness. Look what happened to the Enterprise in the Proving Ground episode and "Damage"... it was actually blasted into scrap. I think that if the Enterprise D had taken a pummeling like that (with the weapons of that era) it would have been space dust.

 

[MacLeod]

Is a Runabout really a support vessel, as it is technically a starship (USS) as they have there own registry NCC-72452 (USS Rio Grande). the USS Defiant (NCC-74205) ever lose a shuttle?

 

[jackoverfull]

Did we ever see a defiant shuttle? I seem to remember them being mentioned once but never shown.

And yes, the roundabouts are technically starships.

 

[Farscape One]

They were shown in "THE SOUND OF HER VOICE", and the interior in "THE SEARCH, PART I" when Odo took Kira to the nebula.

 

[jackoverfull]

Thanks, totally forgot about that.

 

[Timo]

We basically got two models, both with integrated warp cowlings rather than separate cigar nacelles: the first was seen in "Destiny" and later in "The Search" and had gullwing side doors so that the interior in the latter episode could be mocked up with the good old TNG shuttlepod prop, and the latter was only seen from the outside in "The Sound of Her Voice" and had an aft hatch (which serendipitously ties with "The Search" again, because there the dream sequence featured Sisko and Bashir drifting in another shuttle interior and being rescued via its aft hatch).

Nothing precludes the dream shuttle from having been yet a third, otherwise unseen type, though. Or even a non-existing type, given it was a dream. But we never saw further shuttle or shuttlepod types carried by the Defiant.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[IMC Headquarters]

The hatch on the shuttle pod is suspiciously thinner than that of those found on the rear of current automobiles. And supported by skinny pneumatic pistons! My god these just scream "flying tin can"! Scary!

 

[publiusr]

I'd rather be in a TOS shuttle than any other with covers over the windows. Shuttlepods from NX-01 look a little less sturdy but better gliders.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's the lack of airlocks on (all?) pre-2009 Trek shuttles that skeeves me out. Just one little thin door between you and icy cold death.

 

[jackoverfull]

It's the lack of airlocks on (all?) pre-2009 Trek shuttles that skeeves me out. Just one little thin door between you and icy cold death.

TNG shuttles could probably use a force field instead of the airlock (and had transporters anyway). TOS shuttles perhaps needed to decompress for people to get out (Discovery’s ones have the same abilities as TNG’s!).

In any case, it doesn’t seem that those shuttles were designed to dock, they were made to land on planets or hangar decks. Enterprise’s ones, once again, were required to be more flexible.

 

[IMC Headquarters]

It's the lack of airlocks on (all?) pre-2009 Trek shuttles that skeeves me out. Just one little thin door between you and icy cold death.

Or incineration, during a problematic re-entry...

TNG shuttles could probably use a force field instead of the airlock (and had transporters anyway). TOS shuttles perhaps needed to decompress for people to get out (Discovery’s ones have the same abilities as TNG’s!).

In any case, it doesn’t seem that those shuttles were designed to dock, they were made to land on planets or hangar decks. Enterprise’s ones, once again, we’re required to be more flexible.

We know they're hardier than a 1960's fighter plane, and can withstand a tractor beam. Still strike me as fragile as the Lunar Excursion Module.