Face it Phantom, it's just a garage.
Who is in charge of the shuttlebay?
- Thread starter Admiral Archer
- Start date
Self explanatory, really. It simply means that nobody left the ship without it being observed or recorded somehow (even if someone has to ask the ship's computer after the fact). But generally such occurrences happen during the course of whatever mission or operation is going on at the time by key personnel rather than by everyone.
What we saw in TOS and TNG were shuttles for personnel transport. Compared with a carriers' AEW, electronic warfare, strike, fleet defense, search & rescue, tanker, ASW, COD etc. aircraft roles, well there is no comparison.
What's in the video is someone's idea of how the shuttle bay might work, but it wasn't seen in the show. What we do know is that the majority of the time, Enterprise performs its mission without launching a shuttle at all. As opposed to an aircraft carrier, which has no mission that doesn't involve operating aircraft.
"Not always catapulted. Catapulting didn't become necessary until the jet age, because the high speeds needed to lift such heavy aircraft were not possible w/o the cats."
FYI, pre-WW2 aircraft carriers such as the USS Enterprise CV-6 did have catapults. As did the Essex-class built during the war. They all used cable catapults. Usually two bow-mounted ones. The Enterprise even had a hangar deck mounted catapult that shot the aircraft out on an angle. Originally designed for biplanes. It didn't take alot of airspeed to launch them. The Essex-class ships were converted to more powerful steam catapults for jets after the war. When they had the angled flight decks added.
FYI, pre-WW2 aircraft carriers such as the USS Enterprise CV-6 did have catapults. As did the Essex-class built during the war. They all used cable catapults. Usually two bow-mounted ones. The Enterprise even had a hangar deck mounted catapult that shot the aircraft out on an angle. Originally designed for biplanes. It didn't take alot of airspeed to launch them. The Essex-class ships were converted to more powerful steam catapults for jets after the war. When they had the angled flight decks added.
Which means that transporter use was less monitored than going to the toilet (at least in the latter case, the computer could tell where the person was!), and that there never was any procedure of any sort involved, other than the one-step one of "using the transporter".
So the 24th century at least treats these miracle technologies as utterly unworthy of artificially imposed user restrictions. Furthermore, while we can debate the crewing of the shuttle facilities, we know that there are people whiling away their working hours at the transporter rooms - very few episodes reveal an uncrewed transporter control console. These people explicitly allow our officer heroes to do whatever they please, without asking for permits or explanations.
transporters = elevators
shuttlecraft = cars
transporter ops = an overtly pompous name for pressing of elevator buttons
shuttlecraft ops = trust-based car pool
Timo Saloniemi
Key words there are "officer heroes" and its usually for either a mission currently underway or while the ship is in port somewhere and travel to and from the ship is permitted (the extent of which may vary perhaps).
But it doesn't take much to be "officer hero" - the term is essentially synonymous with "whoever is on camera". Visitors like Matt Decker would definitely qualify. Reg "Only A Superior Officer Because O'Brien Got A Convenient Instant Demotion" Barclay qualified. Wesley Crusher had free hands with the transporter, even when performing rare dangerous waste disposal procedures. Ambassador Fox had real trouble overriding the officers on most issues relating to ship ops, but could do the standard "waltzing in" maneuver in a situation where it very specifically was not permitted.
It really is nothing to write home about. Or in other words, we never saw any evidence that anybody would be stopped and questioned. A few villains resorted to violence against the personnel, but this only means they failed to try the alternative of just plain doing it.
Timo Saloniemi
It really is nothing to write home about. Or in other words, we never saw any evidence that anybody would be stopped and questioned. A few villains resorted to violence against the personnel, but this only means they failed to try the alternative of just plain doing it.
Timo Saloniemi
It really seems really unlikely that anyone can just come and go from the ship whenever they want and with no questions asked unless it was part of a current mission op or when the ship is docked at a safe port. And even with the latter, it's probably a case of liberty being granted. Otherwise, it's just everyone going AWOL whenever they want.
We have a good many examples of people getting off the ship (by transporter or shuttle) in situations where this should be maximally difficult - during Red Alerts, during inspections, during quarantines on the planet below. We could argue that it's more difficult to do during lulls between alerts, inspections or quarantines... But would that really make sense? Especially as we still lack actual evidence of it being difficult during such periods.
With transporters, one might argue that there's general laxness of security because the device is of limited use unless the starship is in orbit. Shuttles in turn might be incapable of launching when the mothership is at warp (although the jury is still out on that). But we still lack evidence that any sort of tightening of rules would take place when the hero ship reaches a planet, or meets with another ship, or otherwise makes the circumstances more favorable for random departures.
Is it an issue of AWOL being an outdated concept? With these new technologies, containment is not a practical option - any kid can and will escape a locked dormitory or a fenced schoolyard unless state-of-the-art military-standard security measures are introduced. Keeping guard over the ship's own transporter is futile if the ship is next to another vessel or an inhabited, civilized planet. So keeping people from departing is done by telling them not to. If that doesn't suffice, the next step is not revoking of privileges - it is locking up in a brig with three-layer forcefields, or else it's not going to achieve anything.
Timo Saloniemi
With transporters, one might argue that there's general laxness of security because the device is of limited use unless the starship is in orbit. Shuttles in turn might be incapable of launching when the mothership is at warp (although the jury is still out on that). But we still lack evidence that any sort of tightening of rules would take place when the hero ship reaches a planet, or meets with another ship, or otherwise makes the circumstances more favorable for random departures.
Is it an issue of AWOL being an outdated concept? With these new technologies, containment is not a practical option - any kid can and will escape a locked dormitory or a fenced schoolyard unless state-of-the-art military-standard security measures are introduced. Keeping guard over the ship's own transporter is futile if the ship is next to another vessel or an inhabited, civilized planet. So keeping people from departing is done by telling them not to. If that doesn't suffice, the next step is not revoking of privileges - it is locking up in a brig with three-layer forcefields, or else it's not going to achieve anything.
Timo Saloniemi
Which usually occur during the aforementioned mission operations. If anything, transporters would be ready during such times in case there's a need for mission personnel to leave the ship.
TNG's "The Hunted" and "Brothers" tell a different story. Transporters can be shut down to prevent unauthorized use, requiring some skill or special security codes to turn them back on.
And that was done in the episodes, basically establishing it isn't done normally. That is, the default position is "unlocked, active and ready for casual use" regardless of whether an alert is on or not.
A fun tidbit comes from TAS "Albatross", where an alien seems to be thinking he can sneak aboard the hero ship through her shuttlebay. Granted, he might be way off base there, but the Maquis believed much the same thing about sneaking up to starships in "Preemptive Strike", and they are usually considered experts on everything, especially Starfleet secrets...
Timo Saloniemi
A fun tidbit comes from TAS "Albatross", where an alien seems to be thinking he can sneak aboard the hero ship through her shuttlebay. Granted, he might be way off base there, but the Maquis believed much the same thing about sneaking up to starships in "Preemptive Strike", and they are usually considered experts on everything, especially Starfleet secrets...
Timo Saloniemi
Which still means that it can be locked when there's someone who isn't supposed to be using it. An argument could be made that there's no reason to lock it down unless that was the case as given in the episodes.
Yup - but the practical significance of that is that everybody normally aboard, from Captain Pickirsiskoway down to the six-year-old daughter of Passenger Ballast is excluded from the "not supposed to be using it" group. So while we might mostly see top officers (read: main stars) "abusing" the machine for various joyrides, this doesn't seem to be sufficient proof that they would be the only ones capable of the act.
It would be interesting to get similar dialogue or action regarding the concept of locking up the shuttlebay. But the only thing we ever get is the "we can't close the barn door until the horse is a speck in the horizon" bit. There is no preemptive locking of shuttles or their bays when a villain is on the loose. Yet we know that key starship software can be locked swiftly and so securely that not even Data can open it again - why is this not applicable to the shuttles and their bay?
"Emergency override" is a valid explanation for the bay doors: one really doesn't want to find the doors stuck when a shuttle inside is damaged and about to blow up. What explains the failure to lock up the shuttles? I trust there are basic "ignition keys" locks there that allow Will Riker and Jake Kurland to operate the craft but stop Clara Sutton from doing so by accident, and underhanded ways for Riker or Kurland to override such locks if they really need to. But why no Data-proof, remotely activated locks?
Timjo Saloniemi
It would be interesting to get similar dialogue or action regarding the concept of locking up the shuttlebay. But the only thing we ever get is the "we can't close the barn door until the horse is a speck in the horizon" bit. There is no preemptive locking of shuttles or their bays when a villain is on the loose. Yet we know that key starship software can be locked swiftly and so securely that not even Data can open it again - why is this not applicable to the shuttles and their bay?
"Emergency override" is a valid explanation for the bay doors: one really doesn't want to find the doors stuck when a shuttle inside is damaged and about to blow up. What explains the failure to lock up the shuttles? I trust there are basic "ignition keys" locks there that allow Will Riker and Jake Kurland to operate the craft but stop Clara Sutton from doing so by accident, and underhanded ways for Riker or Kurland to override such locks if they really need to. But why no Data-proof, remotely activated locks?
Timjo Saloniemi
That's unlikely, given that there were areas that were off-limits to passengers.
The Maquis didn't. Ro did. And she had just come from advanced tactical training. And even then she got caught, though Picard let her through for the mission's sake.
"The Hunted" is a Master class in 24th century intruder/counter-intruder tactics and strategy. Just as in the later "Preemptive Strike", the "defenders" are up against extremely skilled (and in Roga Danar's case, physiologically "boosted") intruders.
Last edited:
Type of things launched doesn't mean squat. It's how they are launched, handled, etc. And that is like a carrier does.
We know no such thing. All we're seeing is short term "stopover" missions the overwhelming majority of the time. We're not seeing the missions where the ships stays weeks at a planet conducting a thorough survey, or helping set up a colony, etc.
Which has ZERO bearing on whether or not the shuttlebays operate in the same manner as an aircraft carrier.
I double checked that, and (as far as that goes), you're correct. They had them, but generally didn't use them. At least not until late in the war, and then only about 40% of the time at most.
During a red alert there is no way shuttle bays would not be fully manned. They'd be essential for possible evacuation protocols. I suppose in a vessel as automated as a starship the bay need not be manned at all times but I would have thought that a minimal deck crew would have supervised the area and carried out maintenance checks, safety drills, and evacuation drills. I mean what happens if a random intruder hits the giant atmosphere venting button by mistake?
It's probably Kevin Riley. That's why we never see him again. They stuck him downstairs and in charge of the garage door opener. And the big red button that vents the shuttlebay.
