12-30-2016, 05:27 AM | #31 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Star Trek Shuttles
Quote:
Which isn't to say they couldn't use it, just that they could not use it.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
12-30-2016, 06:35 AM | #32 | |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: Star Trek Shuttles
Quote:
There is a reference in The Cage to rockets -- yes, rockets, despite those having been disparaged by Cmdr. Tucker a century earlier -- that can blast the Enterprise out of orbit in an emergency escape. But I'd put that in the category of simple inconsistency, especially since that script was so early. Thrusters might be chemical rockets, but they might not. Since these rockets are used as an alternative to the warp drive, they're probably really what we're calling the impulse drive, and not a fourth kind of motive power for the Constitution class. You wouldn't bat an eye if Spock said "Switch to impulse" in that bit: SPOCK: Address intercraft. GARISON: Open, sir. SPOCK: This is the acting captain speaking. We have no choice now but to consider the safety of this vessel and the remainder of the crew. We're leaving. All decks prepare for hyperdrive. Time warp factor -- TYLER: Mister Spock, the ship's controls have gone dead. (The lights go out) SPOCK: Engine room! GARISON: Open. SPOCK: Mister Spock here. Switch to rockets. We're blasting out. |
|
12-30-2016, 10:48 AM | #33 | |
Untitled
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: between keyboard and chair
|
Re: Star Trek Shuttles
Quote:
__________________
Rob Kelk “Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.” – Bernard Baruch, Deming (New Mexico) Headlight, 6 January 1950 No longer reading these forums regularly. |
|
12-30-2016, 10:58 AM | #34 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: On the road again...
|
Re: Star Trek Shuttles
Quote:
A true "starship landing" for the saucer would have had the crew deploy landing gear - such as we see on the Voyager - and come in at a an angle to avoid digging up the dirt for kilometers. By your logic, we could land the no-letter Enterprise on a planet. My rebuttal to that is: where is the landing gear?
__________________
"Life ... is an Oreo cookie." - J'onn J'onzz, 1991 "But mom, I don't wanna go back in the dungeon!" The GURPS Marvel Universe Reboot Project A-G, H-R, and S-Z, and its not-a-wiki-really web adaptation. Ranoc, a Muskets-and-Magery Renaissance Fantasy Setting |
|
12-30-2016, 02:10 PM | #35 |
Untitled
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: between keyboard and chair
|
Re: Star Trek Shuttles
Who said "controlled"? Put the goalposts back where they were, please.
__________________
Rob Kelk “Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.” – Bernard Baruch, Deming (New Mexico) Headlight, 6 January 1950 No longer reading these forums regularly. |
12-30-2016, 02:26 PM | #36 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Re: Star Trek Shuttles
Quote:
I'd say impulse drive is really a type of reactionless drive, and that's the primary drive for the shuttles (warp drive is optional, depending on source...). For fine maneuvering... whatever it is, just assume that they're equivalent in effort and space to any other built-in trim system (like a starship's maneuvering thrusters). The real question is for moving in an atmosphere without falling like a thrown brick. From the looks of it (i.e., on-screen motion) it almost has to be gravitic in nature. But one could assume a really big 'downward' facing maneuver thruster that work in concert with the ones for yaw, pitch, roll, etc.
__________________
My blog: All my hobbies, all the time |
|
12-30-2016, 04:02 PM | #37 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ronkonkoma, NY
|
Re: Star Trek Shuttles
When the Bounty lands and takes off in San Francisco there's a great deal of wind associated with the events. That sounds like a reaction drive.
When shuttles land or lift off from planets there's no wind. That sounds like anti-grav. When writers contribute to a long-running science-fiction series decades apart, that sounds like fiction. |
12-30-2016, 05:28 PM | #38 |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: On the road again...
|
Re: Star Trek Shuttles
I suppose the real question is: what explanation fits the game best?
When it comes to shuttles, particularly when said shuttles are between the size of a minivan and that of a small moving van, having them operate as contragravity in atmo matches the feel of what we see best. This also fits for "good starting PC" ships like the Danube-class runabout. If we need an explanation, we can say that larger vessels - such as the various Enterprises and the Klingon B'rel-class bird of prey - are too heavy for contragravity lifters to lift, at least through the TOS-cast movie era and possibly into the early TNG era. (I don't recall if Voyager's atmospheric maneuvering was shown or described as using thrusters/impulse engines or contragrav.)
__________________
"Life ... is an Oreo cookie." - J'onn J'onzz, 1991 "But mom, I don't wanna go back in the dungeon!" The GURPS Marvel Universe Reboot Project A-G, H-R, and S-Z, and its not-a-wiki-really web adaptation. Ranoc, a Muskets-and-Magery Renaissance Fantasy Setting |
12-30-2016, 05:39 PM | #39 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Star Trek Shuttles
It definitely wasn't Warp. They had to take the warp core off-line to safely enter a planetary atmosphere.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
12-30-2016, 10:17 PM | #40 |
Join Date: Jan 2014
|
Re: Star Trek Shuttles
Isn't there also the fact that Voyager is a much smaller ship compared to say a Galaxy-class? It's a small, speedy scoutship really that was supposed to be small enough to be able to enter and move about in that plasma storm in the Badlands to take on the Maquis hiding there whereas a bigger more powerful ship like a Galaxy or Sovereign-class were just not manueverable or agile enough or something from what I remember.
|
Tags |
star trek, star trek spaceships |
|
|