Shuttlecraft Crashes...

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2003-02-02 11:45pm

Watching the Columbia Disaster got me thinking of some major and way overused cliche in star trek...The Shuttle Crash, i have wondered why is it that shuttlecraft have a tendency to out of the blue...crash. Its like this..

Pilot flying the shuttlecraft: Ladeladela

>Shuttle rocks<

Co-Pilot: The altitute control has failed, the main power is out. We have to land on the icy rock of that planet that looks to much like the other planet we crashed into..

Pilot: Switching to manual control...

Co-Pilot: manual systems have failed

Both Pilots: We are going down onto that planet ahhhhhh!!

And there is the crash itself... The shuttle should burn up and fall into pieces like the columbia but it looks like a frilling car crash on the Beltway.

Any comments..

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-02-02 11:47pm

Stronger materials and sheilds...

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-02-02 11:50pm

SolidSnake wrote:Stronger materials and sheilds...

What I was going to say. Shuttles are made out of the same kind of material that starships are constructed from.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-02 11:51pm

SolidSnake wrote:Stronger materials and sheilds...

Doesn't matter; the occupants would splatter against the insides, and the craft would impact into the ground with a huge explosion. Even if the craft is assumed to be infinitely strong, the ground would vapourize at the point of impact.

I think we have to simply assume the craft ALMOST makes a clean landing, rather than treating these crashes as the full-blown system failures that they're described to be.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-02-02 11:55pm

Yeah, shuttles aren't exactly aerodynamic, so they can't really glide to the ground.

On a related note: Where the hell is the warpcore for shuttles anyways? What I don't get is if they can minaturize warpcores to fit on shuttles and yet be able to go at a nice speed of warp 5, then why can't they reduce the size of starship warpcores so they don't take up multiple decks?

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-02-02 11:57pm

Maybe the hull-integrity fields are stronger on shuttles than they are on starships?

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-02-02 11:58pm

jaeger115 wrote:Maybe the hull-integrity fields are stronger on shuttles than they are on starships?

Yeah and maybe Dr. Crusher looks good in a thong. Oh god, why did I have to put that image in my head...

Baron Mordo · Post by **Baron Mordo** » 2003-02-03 12:00am

It's probably some bullcrap about the warp field being smaller, and not needing a multi-deck warp core, but something that can fit comfortably in a samsonite briefcase.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-02-03 12:00am

Aya wrote:On a related note: Where the hell is the warpcore for shuttles anyways? What I don't get is if they can minaturize warpcores to fit on shuttles and yet be able to go at a nice speed of warp 5, then why can't they reduce the size of starship warpcoresm so they don't take up multiple decks?

Do you realise what you just said?

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-02-03 12:01am

Atmospheric entry profiles also have to be considered. Real-world spacecraft aerobrake (or aerobreak, in the case of Columbia....) because they don't have anywhere near enough fuel to negate their orbital velocity. For SF ships that can do interplanetary or even relativistic velocities without breaking a sweat, however, aerobraking is not necessary. It's much more likely that SF ships and shuttles simply use their engines to cancel their orbital velocity and flydown to ground level at a comfortably safe speed.

Using this model it's possible to rationalize total systems failure landings on the grounds that everything goes wrong when the shuttle is in its low-velocity descent stage, well after shedding its orbital velocity.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-02-03 12:04am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Aya wrote:On a related note: Where the hell is the warpcore for shuttles anyways? What I don't get is if they can minaturize warpcores to fit on shuttles and yet be able to go at a nice speed of warp 5, then why can't they reduce the size of starship warpcoresm so they don't take up multiple decks?
Do you realise what you just said?

nope.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-02-03 12:09am

Darth Wong wrote:Doesn't matter; the occupants would splatter against the insides, and the craft would impact into the ground with a huge explosion. Even if the craft is assumed to be infinitely strong, the ground would vapourize at the point of impact.

Huh?

Shuttlecraft are about as aerodynamic as bricks. Unless the pilot tried to enter at too steep an angle of attack, shuttles willl shed velocity quite nicely. In the absense of flight controls, Trek shuttles would violently tumble (leading, as you say, to dead crew splattered around the inside of the hull) but hulls aren't going to crater at mach 25.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-03 12:30am

Enlightenment wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Doesn't matter; the occupants would splatter against the insides, and the craft would impact into the ground with a huge explosion. Even if the craft is assumed to be infinitely strong, the ground would vapourize at the point of impact.
Huh?

Shuttlecraft are about as aerodynamic as bricks. Unless the pilot tried to enter at too steep an angle of attack, shuttles willl shed velocity quite nicely. In the absense of flight controls, Trek shuttles would violently tumble (leading, as you say, to dead crew splattered around the inside of the hull) but hulls aren't going to crater at mach 25.

You wouldn't get the same kind of cratering you'd get for a large asteroid impact, but even a craft slamming into the ground at mach 2 would vapourize a portion of the ground where it hits, unless its hull deforms (I was talking about an imaginary indestructible hull, if you recall).

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-02-03 12:36am

Darth Wong wrote:You wouldn't get the same kind of cratering you'd get for a large asteroid impact, but even a craft slamming into the ground at mach 2 would vapourize a portion of the ground where it hits, unless its hull deforms (I was talking about an imaginary indestructible hull, if you recall).

Given the drag coefficient of somehing like a Runabout it'll be damn lucky to be flying at 0.25 mach let alone mach 2 by the time it reaches ground level. Vaporization seems to be a bit much as the ground would deform on impact even if the hull was infinitely rigid.

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2003-02-03 12:51am

heres another thing, if shuttle crash as much as they do, why doesnt any Starfleet engineers learn from them to try to prevent future accidents. Starfleet i presume should have an NTSB-type organization for investigating ship disasters and trying to prevent them.

The idea of why shuttle hit the ground with out vaporizing came from Star Trek 3. The enterprise Refit fell into the atmosphere and burned up. Shuttles hit the ground intact. They should be nothing more than paper when they hit the atmosphere and burn up.

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2003-02-03 12:55am

since alot of their engineering protacols were writen by Scotty, and are only changed if the technology changes. If the tech of inertial dampeners hasn't changed they probably have independent power storage to maintain function even if the ship loses power.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-02-03 01:10am

Baron Mordo wrote:It's probably some bullcrap about the warp field being smaller, and not needing a multi-deck warp core, but something that can fit comfortably in a samsonite briefcase.

Could be an exponential curve thingie.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-02-03 03:58am

The shuttlecraft crash is one of the single most idiotic plot devices in all of Star Trek. To expect that anybody could conceivably come out of the crash of something with all the glide characteristics of an anvil with nothing more than a broken arm (Riker, in "Power Play") is so ludicrous that it frankly defies description. The strength of the hull materials or framing doesn't even enter into the picture here: the impact force would cause that thing to crumple like wet toilet paper when it hits.

The "superior forcefileds" argument doesn't wash either, particularly when the shuttle in quesiton is suffering an all-systems failure. All systems includes all the bullshit technobabble integrity fields which keep these things rigid.

And even, somehow, someway, that something with all the glide characteristics of an anvil actually manages to survive intact on impact, the crew wouldn't. They'd be pulped —assuming that heat transfer doesn't ash them first. Friction and all that...

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-02-03 04:17am

Patrick Degan wrote:The shuttlecraft crash is one of the single most idiotic plot devices in all of Star Trek.

The E-D's saucer falling out of orbit in Generations and surviving really takes the cake as the greatest insult to spacecraft orbital mechanics and aerodynamics, though.

Doesn't Gm_p * r^-2 = mv^2 * r^-2 work in the Trek universe or something?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-03 09:43am

Enlightenment wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You wouldn't get the same kind of cratering you'd get for a large asteroid impact, but even a craft slamming into the ground at mach 2 would vapourize a portion of the ground where it hits, unless its hull deforms (I was talking about an imaginary indestructible hull, if you recall).
Given the drag coefficient of somehing like a Runabout it'll be damn lucky to be flying at 0.25 mach let alone mach 2 by the time it reaches ground level. Vaporization seems to be a bit much as the ground would deform on impact even if the hull was infinitely rigid.

If it's dragging that badly it should simply burn up in the atmosphere. Unless their shields are working but everything else isn't, which I wouldn't past Trek writers.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-02-03 10:14am

Ow...Wong and Enlightment made my head hurt. x_X

Anyways, Wong was talking about how a shuttle could probably create a crator when it crashed, I remembered that one episode of Voyager when the Delta Flyer crashed into that planet. Sure, somehow to "bridge" of the Flyer managed to survive the crash somewhat intact, but most of the shuttle was destroyed and it did leave a crator.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-02-03 10:34am

I would venture a guess that the subspace "mass-lightening" field of the shuttle doesn't fail, or at least it doesn't fail completely. This would give the shuttle a very large amount of volume and surface area compared to its mass, thus pushing its terminal velocity way down. The shuttle's hull would still need to be sturdy enough to withstand the re-entry heat, but the physical stress on the hull would be much lower than a conventional craft of similar size would have to endure.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-03 10:54am

Dennis Toy wrote:heres another thing, if shuttle crash as much as they do, why doesnt any Starfleet engineers learn from them to try to prevent future accidents. Starfleet i presume should have an NTSB-type organization for investigating ship disasters and trying to prevent them.

The idea of why shuttle hit the ground with out vaporizing came from Star Trek 3. The enterprise Refit fell into the atmosphere and burned up. Shuttles hit the ground intact. They should be nothing more than paper when they hit the atmosphere and burn up.

They probably treat shuttle wrecks more like traffic accidents than plane crashes.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2003-02-03 09:47pm

Enlightenment said:

The E-D's saucer falling out of orbit in Generations and surviving really takes the cake as the greatest insult to spacecraft orbital mechanics and aerodynamics, though.

Yeah, but that time they had an excuse

They still had power and, presumably their fancy (in this case oddly uber) SIF. Bad as it is, I think it is the only way the ship could have survived.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-02-03 11:22pm

The Silence and I wrote:Enlightenment said:
The E-D's saucer falling out of orbit in Generations and surviving really takes the cake as the greatest insult to spacecraft orbital mechanics and aerodynamics, though.
Yeah, but that time they had an excuse

They still had power and, presumably their fancy (in this case oddly uber) SIF. Bad as it is, I think it is the only way the ship could have survived.

I thought something was said about "all power to SIFs" or something like that during the descent. And, IIRC, the TM says that basically throwing everything into SIF at the last moment is what more or less saves the craft, and even then it's not expected to survive well enough to be useable after the crash.