Star Trek Shuttles

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by warellis

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.

It was also ultra cutting edge full of not completely tested technology. At least for the first few episodes before the writing really went to inconsistent crap.

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by warellis

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.

True. It was a nice little picket ship, IMO, which is why I wondered why they gave it a name such as "Voyager". It's like there was a precog on the naming committee who knew it was going to fall through an unstable wormhole....

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

True. It was a nice little picket ship, IMO, which is why I wondered why they gave it a name such as "Voyager". It's like there was a precog on the naming committee who knew it was going to fall through an unstable wormhole....

Voyager (I think technically an Intrepid-class) wasn't even that small compared to a Galaxy-class. Except perhaps in crew requirements. Lots less science-y stuff.

By the figures I remember it was about 70% the tonnage of a Galaxy and Galaxies were 8x the size of the Constitution-class ships of TOS and those were almost twice the size of a Nimitz.

Landing any of them doesn't make much sense.

[warellis]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Voyager (I think technically an Intrepid-class) wasn't even that small compared to a Galaxy-class. Except perhaps in crew requirements. Lots less science-y stuff.

By the figures I remember it was about 70% the tonnage of a Galaxy and Galaxies were 8x the size of the Constitution-class ships of TOS and those were almost twice the size of a Nimitz.

Landing any of them doesn't make much sense.

Actually around 14% of a Galaxy's tonnage. An Intrepid-class ship is 700,000 metric tons while a Galaxy-class ship is "5,000,000" tons:

Commander William T. Riker's console on the bridge had some information on the dimensions of the USS Enterprise. This information might be true for her sister ships. The Enterprise had an overall length of 641 meters, an overall width of 473 meters, and an overall height of 190 meters. The gross vehicle mass of this ship was 5,000,000 tons. The ship had a standard crew complement of 1,012 persons, with a maximum evacuation capacity of 15,000 persons. The environmental standard on the ship was M-class. The maximum sustainable speed was warp 8.2, with the ship being able, temporarily, to travel at warp 9.8 for emergency situations. (TNG: "New Ground", okudagram)

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

One could, grasping at straws here, conclude that phasers gave the required energy for the start up like how one may need to jump a car battery even though it mainly runs on gas.

I think the dialog clearly demonstrates the writers had no clue fuel and energy aren't synonyms:

SCOTT: I can adjust the main reactor to function with a substitute fuel supply.
SPOCK: That's all very well, but we don't have a substitute supply.
SCOTT: Aye, we do. Our phasers. I can adapt them and use their energy. It'll take time, but it's possible.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Voyager (I think technically an Intrepid-class) wasn't even that small compared to a Galaxy-class. Except perhaps in crew requirements. Lots less science-y stuff.

Constitution-class complement: 430

Galaxy-class complement and passengers: 1,000

Intrepid-class complement: 150

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by warellis

Actually around 14% of a Galaxy's tonnage. An Intrepid-class ship is 700,000 metric tons while a Galaxy-class ship is "5,000,000" tons:

From the quoted bits it's obvious that there was much greater u7se on neutronium than in the Constitution-class. The Galaxy-class is 2x as long and maybe 3x as wide but 25x as massive.

Or maybe it's just that Okuda is a sub-standard source of information.

The 700,000 is what I remember for Voyager and is more than 3.5x as massive as the 190,000 ton Constitution-class.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by malloyd

I think the dialog clearly demonstrates the writers had no clue fuel and energy aren't synonyms:

SCOTT: I can adjust the main reactor to function with a substitute fuel supply.
SPOCK: That's all very well, but we don't have a substitute supply.
SCOTT: Aye, we do. Our phasers. I can adapt them and use their energy. It'll take time, but it's possible.

That is why I said that I was grasping at straws by trying to force close as many plot holes and inconsistencies as possible.

[warellis]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

From the quoted bits it's obvious that there was much greater u7se on neutronium than in the Constitution-class. The Galaxy-class is 2x as long and maybe 3x as wide but 25x as massive.

Or maybe it's just that Okuda is a sub-standard source of information.

The 700,000 is what I remember for Voyager and is more than 3.5x as massive as the 190,000 ton Constitution-class.

Well Intrepids are 344.424 meters or something in length. So like 40 to 60 meters longer than the original Connies and refit Connies.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by warellis

Well Intrepids are 344.424 meters or something in length. And apparently Constitutions are "1,000,000 gross tons." I've no idea what that is in metric tons.

EDIT: Well in Memory Beta, the wiki for the Star Trek EU, Constitutions are at 190,000 metric tons. Don't know which is really correct.

Neither. Both. The Million Gross Tons figure was pulled from a throw-away line in one of the episodes. The 190,000 metric ton figure was pulled from the (semi-official, but not really) Star Trek Tech Manual. Neither one necessarily likes up with the reality of the show, let alone the reality of how massive the Enterprise should be.