Star Trek Shuttles Are Too Small.

[GodThingFormerly]

Well, where's the consumables storage? Sure the box of the shuttle is the right size to carry a bunch of people, but the fuel needs to fit somewhere.

I have long argued that 23rd century Starfleet spacecraft employ some form of degenerate matter as impulse engine fuel/reaction mass, the concept of which was first proposed by German aerospace scientist Karl Hans Janke (the theoretical pioneer of GPS) in the late 1930s and then popularized decades later in 1990s hard sci-fi novels such as Iris by William Barton & Michael Capobianco and Saturn Rukh by Robert L. Forward.

TGT

 

[Gepard]

^While that seems somewhat out of step with the "engineering" employed in most of Trek, at least it would allow the notion of neutronium-as-semi-common-building-material feel a little less lonely.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

While that seems somewhat out of step with the "engineering" employed in most of Trek...

TOS thankfully kept such matters comparatively vague, hence my reference to 23rd century space vehicles.

...at least it would allow the notion of neutronium-as-semi-common-building-material feel a little less lonely.

Lemme guess: DS9? Why am I not surprised.

TGT

 

[Gepard]

Lemme guess: DS9? Why am I not surprised.

TGT

Now, now....we can blame TOS for that, too.

 

[JNG]

Lemme guess: DS9? Why am I not surprised.

TGT

I think it was just the Iconians and other long-vanished, ultra-powerful types who seemed to be building things out of "neutronium" (if indeed Trek always means the same thing by neutronium). That's not SO hard to swallow, I guess.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

An F-22 Raptor would dwarf any Star Trek shuttle.

Absolutely untrue. As someone who's actually worked on the F-22, I feel pretty comfortable saying that.

Look at shuttles in the later TNG-era movies, and they are quite a bit larger than the F-22.

The F-22 is 18.9 meters long.

The Insurrection shuttle (the largest non-runabout shuttle we've seen with the possible exception of the Argo, which I couldn't find numbers for) is 16 meters long. Voyager's speedboat shuttles were 8.5 meters, and TNG's Type 6 was a mere 6 meters.

Even a runabout is only 20 meters long, making it barely larger than an F-22.

And if "length" is the ONLY criteria you look at, that argument might hold some water.

Hey, flagpoles are often quite a bit longer than that too... does that mean that the flagpoles are "larger?"

Compare a 30' long flagpole to a 28' diameter sphere... according to what you seem to think is a "reasonable" argument, that sphere is "smaller" than the flagpole, huh?

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Now, now....we can blame TOS for that, too.

My mistake. I thoughtlessly assumed your use of the phrase "building material" referred to, y'know, buildings (or components thereof such as doors), not spacecraft.

TGT

 

[Tigger]

Perhaps because U.S. Navy launches, the ones that carry the crew from nuclear powered aircraft carriers ashore, are not nuclear powered.

Which is because their mission is to not cruise the world's open oceans for a year or more at a time.

Carriers are nuclear powered because they can dedicate the petroleum storage volume they would need to fuel their own engines to instead store the fuel for their aircraft, reducing the number of times the carriers needs to take on Jet A.

The USN eventually determined that nuclear power for their surface escorts was not economical which is why only a handful were built and vessels that were planned to be nuclear-powered (the Virgina and Ticonderoga Class CGs, for example) were instead built with conventional propulsion.

A Type 7 shuttle is not going to take five people on a 20-year mission beyond the Federation Treaty Zone. I doubt it would take five people on a 20-light-year mission, even though it could do it. So it's scaled for the size it needs to be to handle the mission it is most likely to use. I expect even the Type 9A Cargo Shuttle is used more to transport materials too large for the Cargo Transporters or for times when the CT's are unusable.

 

[SonicRanger]

Now, now....we can blame TOS for that, too.

My mistake. I thoughtlessly assumed your use of the phrase "building material" referred to, y'know, buildings (or components thereof such as doors), not spacecraft.

TGT

No, no, no... That was a Cardassian product that goes by the trade name NewTronium™.

 

[David cgc]

Absolutely untrue. As someone who's actually worked on the F-22, I feel pretty comfortable saying that.

Look at shuttles in the later TNG-era movies, and they are quite a bit larger than the F-22.

The F-22 is 18.9 meters long.

The Insurrection shuttle (the largest non-runabout shuttle we've seen with the possible exception of the Argo, which I couldn't find numbers for) is 16 meters long. Voyager's speedboat shuttles were 8.5 meters, and TNG's Type 6 was a mere 6 meters.

Even a runabout is only 20 meters long, making it barely larger than an F-22.

And if "length" is the ONLY criteria you look at, that argument might hold some water.

Hey, flagpoles are often quite a bit longer than that too... does that mean that the flagpoles are "larger?"

Compare a 30' long flagpole to a 28' diameter sphere... according to what you seem to think is a "reasonable" argument, that sphere is "smaller" than the flagpole, huh?

Are you seriously suggesting that the F-22 is far longer than it is wide or tall, or that a Star Trek shuttle is not much longer than is wide or tall?

Why do I put myself through this?

To scale. As noted, everything but a runabout will be smaller than the shuttle in this example.

From no angle is the shuttle "quite a bit larger." Beyond that, the original point of the comparison was that Trek shuttles didn't have enough space devoted to the machinery necessary to support the cabin, which is clearly backed by the comparion. In the case of the F-22, the entire craft is machinery supporting and driving the tiny cockpit, whereas the shuttlecraft, like all Trek shuttles, is virtually all cabin, except for the warp engines.

 

[BolianAuthor]

Frankly, this generation of Science Fiction fans have become increasingly less sophisticated. Why would anyone use todays understanding of things to judge a vision of the future? By definition, if we understood it today, then it couldn't be something special and unique to a fictional world hundreds of years in the future.

I'm ASSUMING that was a nod to the new Battlestar Galactica series, and its regressed technology? If so, let me point something out...

I LOVE the regressed technology on that show... because it makes perfect sense. Look at the world we live in today... we have space shuttles, and have put a man on the surface of the Moon, yet in stores, you can still go and buy yourself a grandfather clock. Why would you want to do that, when you can have a nice new LED alarm clock, that is far more compact, and loaded with features like an mp3 hookup, radio, alarm, date, and weather?

The answer is, because number one, some people just don't want or need all that new stuff. Number two is... the grandfather clock does its job just fine... it tells the time. If it works, why replace it, just for the sake of what's new and hottest?

The Colonials have and use FTL out of NEED... need is the mother of invention. Physical bullets will kill an enemy just as well as a laser beam would. If it works, and performs its job, there is no need to replace it, again, just for the sake of having something new.

The American military constantly upgrades fighter jets and weapons technology not for the sake of newness, but because it is NEEDED... because our enemies are improving in those areas.

Trek is its own universe, with its own feel... Trek has always been about what's new and cool, and that's fine, as it works for the Trek universe. But I just wanted to offer a little perspective on the issue of retro technology in science fiction.

 

[Shaw]

I'm ASSUMING that was a nod to the new Battlestar Galactica series, and its regressed technology? If so, let me point something out...

I didn't point at any show in particular... and I haven't watched enough Battlestar Galactica to know what the series creators intended to convey. But we are talking about Star Trek (this is a Trek forum after all) and people are attempting to hold what is supposed to be late 23rd century (and beyond) technology to early 21st century standards.

Sure, utilitarian designs will see little change over time. I have, in fact, argued this very point many many times. Every time someone says that the TOS Enterprise isn't believable enough for today's audiences or (worse) has a 1960's look to it, I point out that the Enterprise was designed with no style at all. And that it is portrayed on screen originally without attempting to get too specific into how it worked.

The best example is commercial aircraft. What would someone of the late 1960's who was flying around the country on either DC-9 or 727 jets think if we brought them forward to today and presented them with a new 717?

Aircraft designs are utilitarian, and change only for functional reasons.

But I wasn't talking about stuff we have now that might still exist in the future. In the late 1970s and early 1980s it was believed that we would all have digital watches today... I own three watches, not a single one is digital. The simplest and most elegant solution won out over technology (for me). But that wasn't what I was talking about.

I strongly suggest you go back and reread what I wrote... and just to make sure you see it, I'll quote myself:

"Here is something to ponder for everyone reading this thread... imagine someone like Dayton3 back around 1880 critiquing the novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea... pointing out the fact that the "Nautilus" is totally unrealistic in it's depiction..."

"My suggestion would be to set yourself in the world of 1880 and ask yourself if our world makes any sense by those standards. Compare any of our current subs with the fictional "Nautilus" which was just beyond the scientific horizon back then. It is an interesting exercise, believe me."​

Unless Battlestar Galactica is a remake of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, I don't see where you made this link. Further, it would have been nice if you attempted what I suggested and made your argument based on that.

Go do some research on the state of the world in the 1880s and try to envision our world of today based on the understanding of the world back then. Think about it, cars, planes, subs, spacecraft... even computers and the internet. How would someone of 1880s rationalize the abilities of these things without knowing how they actually worked? The "Nautilus" seems quaint by today's standards, but to many in the 1880s it was totally unrealistic.


But most of all, above and beyond this discussion, don't assume that everyone is attacking (or even cares about) Battlestar Galactica. It makes it seem like you believe that this is one of the shows failings by defending it when it wasn't the subject of the discussion.

 

[BolianAuthor]

^

Again, it was an assumption on my part, and you have pointed out that I was wrong.

Indeed, in the 1800's, people had visions of humans being able to fly in giant blimp-like airships, with bat-like wings, and hot-air balloons. I get your point... and apologize for my error/assumption.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

From no angle is the shuttle "quite a bit larger."

What are you talking about? The shuttle's fuselage is significantly wider and almost twice as tell as the Raptor's; it clearly has far more volume than the Raptor, all internal spaces included. The only thing the raptor has that is "larger" than the shuttle is broader wingspan (long flat surfaces extending out in both directions) and stabilizers (long flat surfaces extending straight up). The wings do not have a great deal of internal volume and neither do the stabilizers. Judging by the diagrams you posted, if the scale is correct the shuttle's impulse engines could well be the same size as the F-22's turbofans.

Beyond that, the original point of the comparison was that Trek shuttles didn't have enough space devoted to the machinery necessary to support the cabin, which is clearly backed by the comparion. In the case of the F-22, the entire craft is machinery supporting and driving the tiny cockpit...

Huh?!

The F-22's fuselage--consists mostly of avionics and fuel, plus not one but TWO pairs of internal weapons bays, an M61 Vulcan cannon, radars, sensors, computers... the support equipment for the cockpit would probably fit into a shoebox.

24th century technology is advanced enough to shrink the entire avionics package into a shoebox-sized module. The rest--fuel and weapons--are likewise miniaturized. If the shuttle has a replicator--which it does--that handles your oxygen, waste, food and water requirements.

So what's left except internal volume, which is only necessary for the capacity to carry physical objects/people vast distances? The F-22 is too small for that. On the other hand, the C-2 Greyhound--which is shorter and not nearly as wide as the F-22--can carry up to 26 passengers in addition to four flight crew.

Out of curiosity, where does the C-2 Greyhound keep its support equipment for its passengers? It's virtually all cabin except for the wings and the engines.

 

[Clawhammer]

I'm not so sure, comparing future technology with today's technology doesnt sound right.

Personally I like to oversize shuttles/runabouts/ships just a bit, to make sure there is room enough for the equipment and to avoid discussions like this one. lol

 

[BolianAuthor]

On the flip side of that, you go from ENIAC,

to the Apple MacIntosh,

to portable hard drives today that have up to a TB in storage...

Looks like some things can get much smaller.

 

[David cgc]

Beyond that, the original point of the comparison was that Trek shuttles didn't have enough space devoted to the machinery necessary to support the cabin, which is clearly backed by the comparion. In the case of the F-22, the entire craft is machinery supporting and driving the tiny cockpit...

Huh?!

The F-22's fuselage--consists mostly of avionics and fuel, plus not one but TWO pairs of internal weapons bays, an M61 Vulcan cannon, radars, sensors, computers... the support equipment for the cockpit would probably fit into a shoebox.

I phrased that badly. My point was the obvious difference in the ratios of things that are crew space to things that aren't crew space. While almost the entirety of the F-22 put towards machinery that allows it to function as an aircraft, a Trek shuttle is, basically, a magic flying room.

 

[SeerSGB]

I have no problem with such miniaturization existing.

Now whether the most is being made of such technology is another matter altogether, one which has more to do with the users than the technology itself.

From an out-of-universe, I wonder how many of the shows artists would go for hero ships with shuttlebays and hangers that can handle jet-liner sized shuttles...

There's actually a pretty good reason for 'Trek tech being what it is: Starfleet and the Federation.

-- You have a Federation of dozens of member worlds, what inovations, new tech, or advancements is going to be blended into everyday life as a result. One race makes a smaller engine, anotehr a slightly better phaser coil, etc.

-- Starfleet is actively surveying and cataloging the galaxy. How much tech is going to be salvaged and discovered in that process. It might take years to get it into the production pipelines, but it'll get there eventually.

 

[Shaw]

I phrased that badly. My point was the obvious difference in the ratios of things that are crew space to things that aren't crew space. While almost the entirety of the F-22 put towards machinery that allows it to function as an aircraft, a Trek shuttle is, basically, a magic flying room.

Arthur C. Clarke (from "Profiles of The Future", 1961, Clarke's third law):
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

As I said before, this generation of Science Fiction fans has become increasingly less sophisticated.

 

[David cgc]

Could you elaborate on that? I don't really see what "sophistication" has to do with whether or not a fictional spaceship has massive amounts of space devoted to engines to support a relatively tiny crew cabin, or if it's just a crew cabin with all the machinery squeezed into a half-inch gap between the floor of the cabin and the outer hull. Especially since, in both cases, the machinery is a black box and all we'd know about it is that it makes the ship go.

Also, if you can go back and quote the part where I had a problem with a shuttlecraft being a magic flying box, that'd be super.