Talk:Aeroshuttle

Future Tense

I'm not sure about this, but I think there was an image of the shuttle on the 31st Century Time Pod in ENT: "Future Tense". Jaz 17:37, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't that get some mention. It would be the only cannon appearance of the Areoshuttle. 69.158.60.218 01:43, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It would need substantiation first, does anybody know about this for sure? Screenshot? – THOR 06:19, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

File:Aeroshuttle future tense.jpg

A Once, and Future Aeroshuttle

Screencap, provided. And it wasn't on the shuttle, it was in the database left by Daniels. Most of it is the same stuff being rolled over and over in different order, but none-the-less, some interesting stuff in that montage. - AJHalliwell 07:47, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

What episode is that in? As the only canon reference, it surely requires a mention, even if it was only seen on a PADD. Jaz 00:04, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

ENT: "Future Tense", and to be nit-picky, it was on a 3-D holographic screen-y thing. - AJHalliwell 00:08, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Design

Sorry to be Anonymous here, but I haven't registered. Has anyone else noticed a major flaw here? Specifically, that while the page claims the Aeroshuttle to be aerodynamic, it is absolutely not? I mean, square leading edges do not a plane make. Has this ever been mentioned on the show, or is it just the writer saying that based on the name of the craft? -Tone, 1:58, 22 Jan 2006

Unfortunatly, ther have been no verbal referances to the Areoshuttle at all, let alone on its areodynamic ability, so we have no way of knowing what the intention was. I think there was at some point a Star Trek Magazine or Fact File article on it, so if you want to try to purchase a back-issue copy, that might help. Also, if you want to become a user, just click the blue text in the top right corner of the screen. It's free, and takes about 6 seconds, and we don't require any info, you don't even need to give an e-mail adress. Jaz 06:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I made an account. I think I'll go ahead and change the page, since it is technically incorrect to call it aerodynamic. The increase in atmospheric flight performance could have been achieved through other means, since the Aeroshuttle's "wings" are really enlarged pylons, which might signify increased engine power, or as yet unseen thrusters on the under-side. Tone 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Exposed image

I'm just curious as to where the image of the exposed aeroshuttle comes from. Is it from a game, conjectural fan art, or what? Karnbeln 00:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As cool as those images are, it seems like most of the information here is either apocraphal or does not comply with the canon policy, with the exception of the Daniels clip. I hate to say this, but those pictures do not belong on this site. --Werideatdusk 06:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but perhaps someone can find a close up of the primary ventral hull, where the areoshuttle should be. Jaz 03:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Werideatdusk: The information is anything but apocrypha, and is definately worth keeping as background info. --Alan del Beccio 03:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant that the pictures need to go, as they don't seem to be fair use. Jaz 03:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I know, my reply was more a reply to a message above yours. --Alan del Beccio 03:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If the information is "anything but" apocrypha, it needs to be cited. I'm referring, in particular, to the warp 3 figure mentioned in the main article. In fact, all of the information about the ship is not cited, except for its inclusion in Daniels' future slideshow. I'm not a big Voyager guy, so I honestly don't know whether this information was canonically established. If it was, it needs to be cited accurately, or at all. If not, it shouldn't be on here. As I said, I love this stuff, but this isn't the place for it. --Werideatdusk 02:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did a bit more research, and the Voyager writers' bible is considered canon by this site. However, as it stands the citations are lax and the information is wholly unverifiable. Is the Writers' Bible available to the public? If so, where? If not, who got the information? And I still say the pictures have to go. --Werideatdusk 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is available to the public if you can find it. I found it, and with it can verify the information, therefore it is not "wholly unverifiable." There are several here who have access to scripts and other limited print texts who have used them in adding information to this site, just because I cant access them doesnt mean they are unverifiable either. --Alan del Beccio 03:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What episode is the photo of the undocked Aeroshuttle from? I didn't think it was ever shown! And the Voyager Technical Manual (First Season Edition) only calls this thing an "Aerowing". Where did the name Aeroshuttle come from? Aholland 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Aeroshuttle" comes from Rick Sternbach's quote noted in the article. The images come from the same place-- Sternbach. --Alan del Beccio 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So the photo is a copy of one from inside the Star Trek Magazine? Is that allowed here? As to the name, why not have the primary name the one in the tech manual from the series rather than a magazine article? Aholland 15:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So does anyone mind if the article is redirected to the name used by the production staff during production (the "Aerowing") rather than that used in an interview once (the "Aeroshuttle")? And the removal of an image from the inside of a magazine? Aholland 01:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is a CGI created by a production source, and as such is copyrighted to Paramount. See: File talk:Aeroshuttle, three-quarter view.jpg --Alan 23:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Starfighter?

From it's design, it looks like a Starfighter from Star Wars or Battlestar Gallactica. Was it used like that in times of battle? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.189.67.134.

We never actually see it in use. Interesting idea though. --OuroborosCobra 05:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That was one of my only pet peeves about Voyager: they had a ship that was almost exactly what Paris was describing when pitching the Flyer idea, but instead of simply modifying or retrofitting their existing yacht, they scratch built a new one. It mentions that they didn't want to steal the Enterprise E's thunder with a separation sequence, but was that before or after the Flyer creation episode? Angelsilhouette 00:40, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

"Extreme Risk" where the Delta Flyer was introduced premiered in October 1998, Insurrection in December 1998, so it might have even been the original idea for the new Delta Flyer. --Pseudohuman 01:16, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Extreme Risk and the Aeroshuttle

I originally posted this on TV Tropes, but I feel it would be relevant here:

Voyager was originally designed with an auxiliary craft called the Aeroshuttle, which can be seen docked to the underside of the ship's saucer section. Its main feature was that it was designed for maneuvering within a planet's atmosphere, which will be important shortly. The show never used this ship, though, as the producers thought it would upstage the similar captain's yacht on the Enterprise-E, also deployed from the underside of the saucer section. This much is already known.

Now onto the theorizing: The Delta Flyer's introduction was already problematic. It was built from scratch on a ship with limited resources, would have had problems even fitting inside the shuttlebay as originally designed, and its introduction wasn't even the primary focus of "Extreme Risk," the episode where it first appeared.

Consider this: What if "Extreme Risk" was originally going to feature the Aeroshuttle instead? Unlike the Delta Flyer, it already exists as a working ship and doesn't need the extra resources. It also docks to the underside of the ship and wouldn't use the shuttlebay anyway. Furthermore, the Delta Flyer's mission in "Extreme Risk" was to retrieve a probe from inside a gas giant. The reason a standard shuttlecraft couldn't be used was that it couldn't stand up to the gas giant's high-pressure atmosphere. As the Aeroshuttle was already stated to be built for atmospheric flight, the mission is practically custom-made for it.

In short, "Extreme Risk" was originally going to be the Aeroshuttle's debut episode until the producers told the staff they couldn't use it due to Insurrection, and the Delta Flyer was added as a result.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.159.219.103.

There is a difference between being built for atmospheric flight and being built to handle the pressure of a gas giant, which was the reason the Flyer was built. That aside, such a claim would need to be cited with evidence(such as a passage from a reference book or statements from Trek staff) to be in this article; we do not put personal speculations in articles. 31dot (talk) 10:36, December 15, 2013 (UTC)