naiman@pegasus.UUCP (Ephrayim J. Naiman) (07/08/84)
Okay ... Remember we said that often the shuttlecraft wasn't used because they didn't know about it yet ? Well ... How about "The Doomsday Machine", Huh, huh ??!!?? They definitely did know about the shuttlecraft there 'cause Decker used it. Now it's true they needed the other ship to destroy the doomsday machine, but, at no time when the transporter was broken and they were trying to get back to the Enterprise, did anyone entertain the idea of using the shuttlecraft. WHY ?! How about that one you trekkies out there (I hope this is fun) !!! -- ==> Ephrayim J. Naiman @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6259 Paths: [ihnp4, allegra, ...]!pegasus!naiman
rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (Roger Noe) (07/09/84)
> the shuttlecraft wasn't used because they didn't know about it yet > How about "The Doomsday Machine", Huh, huh ??!!?? > Ephrayim J. Naiman I'll speculate that the starship which Kirk was stuck on did not have an operational shuttlecraft bay. Quite probably, they had also used up all the shuttles on that ship (but not the Enterprise) trying to destroy the planet killer. Lastly, destroying the thing meant real close timing to make sure it would swallow the "bait". No sense in preparing to destroy a starship unless you can be sure it will have the desired effect. Such timing was not possible if Kirk were to depart using a shuttle craft. If anyone doubts that the other starship was so damaged as to make the shuttle craft bay unusable, recall that the model they used was an Airfix plastic model kit of the Enterprise after a mad model builder and a blowtorch got to it. -- "The more they overthink the plumbin', the easier 'tis to stop up the drain." Roger Noe ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe
brad@sdcrdcf.UUCP (07/10/84)
In article <1473@pegasus.UUCP> naiman@pegasus.UUCP (Ephrayim J. Naiman) writes: >How about "The Doomsday Machine", Huh, huh ??!!?? > > ... > >They definitely did know about the shuttlecraft there 'cause Decker used it. >Now it's true they needed the other ship to destroy the doomsday machine, but, >at no time when the transporter was broken and they were trying to get back to >the Enterprise, did anyone entertain the idea of using the shuttlecraft. WHY ?! Yes, but you remember that Decker's ship (the Constellation?) was SEVERELY damaged; Scotty had to work just to get impulse (barely). It is very probable that the hanger bay doors were damaged, or the bay was completely destroyed. Assuming that there were no other ways in/out of the ship than transporter or shuttle craft, this would effectively trap them, even an Enterprise shuttle couldn't help. This was true during the series. In STII, however, didn't they use another way? My memory isn't what it used to be. Brad Spear sdcrdcf!brad
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (07/11/84)
<OH NO !! IT"S SUCKING US IN!!> The reason they didn't use a shuttle in "Doomsday Machine" is obvious. The flying space fece (oops, sorry, planet-wrecker) was drawing the Constellation in via a tractor beam. If the Constellation's engines couldn't get it out, then how are the much weaker engines of the shuttle going to do the job? Sheesh! Hutch
merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (07/11/84)
{ Ever wonder what happened to Galileo's 1-6? }
In "The Doomsday Machine" how would they get Decker (I think that's his
name) into the shuttle craft. Just open the door and let him walk?
If the ship was as trashed as they said it was, I doubt the controls for
the shuttle bay were in good operation. Thus, they can't dock there and
I don't remember hearing about any other shuttle bays.
And at this point, I don't think they had the airlocks on the top of
the saucer.
--
"What? No boom?" Peter Merchantperl@rdin.UUCP (Robert Perlberg) (07/11/84)
<> From: naiman@pegasus.UUCP ============== How about "The Doomsday Machine", Huh, huh ??!!?? They definitely did know about the shuttlecraft there 'cause Decker used it. Now it's true they needed the other ship to destroy the doomsday machine, but, at no time when the transporter was broken and they were trying to get back to the Enterprise, did anyone entertain the idea of using the shuttlecraft. WHY ?! ============== There wasn't enough time to get a shuttlecraft over there. The ship was going to blow up in a matter of seconds. Good question. Robert Perlberg Resource Dynamics Inc. New York philabs!rdin!perl
burton@inuxd.UUCP (07/13/84)
<one small bug for netnews, one giant bug for netland!>
When I saw this gem I couldn't believe my eyes:
{Ever wonder what happened to Galileo 1-6?}
I don't think the name of the episode referred to Galileo # 7;
I believe that it referred to the 7 people on board the Galileo.
Doug Burton
ATT-CP Indianapolis
inuxg!burtonnaiman@pegasus.UUCP (Ephrayim J. Naiman) (07/13/84)
<Never underestimate a trekkie> As soon as they found out they were trapped (before the Dooomsday's tractor beam) they should have had one of the Enterprises' shuttle crafts come over to Decker's ship and pick them up. It's true the doors may not have worked, but don't you think they had space suits (Re: Tholian web) ? -- ==> Ephrayim J. Naiman @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6259 Paths: [ihnp4, allegra, ...]!pegasus!naiman
friedman@uiucdcs.UUCP (07/14/84)
#R:pegasus:-147300:uiucdcs:24900052:000:438 uiucdcs!friedman Jul 14 09:12:00 1984 > When I saw this gem I couldn't believe my eyes: > {Ever wonder what happened to Galileo 1-6?} > > I don't think the name of the episode referred to Galileo # 7; > I believe that it referred to the 7 people on board the Galileo. If memory serves me, the number painted on the Galileo's side was NCC 1701/7. I suspect the number 7 had a dual meaning, neither one of which implied the existence (or prior existence) of Galileos 1-6.
merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (07/16/84)
I didn't see any other space suits. Did you?
Come come. Of course there are ways that a shuttlecraft COULD HAVE been
used. However, as David Gerrold put it, "The transporter was a device to
get our heroes into the action faster." (Or something like that.)
I haven't seen that episode recently but, if I remember correctly, the big
concern is right at the end when the transporter starts acting flaky.
They may not have had the time to get a shuttle out and ready to go.
Or, another concept: Let's say that the planet buster didn't blow up when
it ate the starship. What then? You have this little baby shuttle puttering
along right in front of it's mouth. The planet buster says "Well, I guess
it's time for dessert."
Yeah, there are episodes where the only excuse for not using a shuttle was
that it wasn't developed yet. However, most of them are pretty solid.
--
Peter Merchantbrahms@trwspp.UUCP (07/17/84)
[}{]
> > {Ever wonder what happened to Galileo 1-6?}
> >
> > I don't think the name of the episode referred to Galileo # 7;
> > I believe that it referred to the 7 people on board the Galileo.
>
> If memory serves me, the number painted on the Galileo's side was
> NCC 1701/7. I suspect the number 7 had a dual meaning, neither one
> of which implied the existence (or prior existence) of Galileos 1-6.
>From what I know/think/remember, NCC 1701/7 refers to the seventh shuttle
craft of the ship NCC 1701 (Enterprise). In the case of the episode
"Galileo 7", since there were seven members of the crew, it would be logical
to assume that the '7' refers to the number of people on the craft.
-- Brad Brahms
usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
arpa: Brahms@USC-ECLCokie@ihuxs.UUCP (B.K. Cobb) (07/18/84)
The number on the side of the Galileo was indeed NCC-1701/7. However, that still doesn't necessarily imply the existence of Galileos 1 through 6. The Enterprise had more than one shuttle (The Columbus was mentioned), and the /7 designation could easily mean it was the seventh auxilliary craft attached to the Enterprise. BKCobb ihnp4!ihuxs!okie
john@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) (07/20/84)
:::::: Mr Scott: The transporters down, we better send a shuttle to pick up the cap'n. Spock: It won't work, the doomsday machine is faster than a shuttle craft. ::::::: John Eaton !hplabs!hp-pcd!john
goldberg@uvm-gen.UUCP (Keith A. Goldberg) (08/06/84)
As regards the question of the meaning behind NCC-1701/7, I believe the "7" refers to the fact that the Galileo is the Enterprise's seventh shuttle. In the blueprints of the Constitution-class starship, it is, I believe, stated that the standard complement of shuttlecraft is seven. Keith Goldberg decvax!dartvax!uvm-gen!goldberg "The word is no... I am therefore going anyway..."