Timeline for Why was the saucer separation so rarely done on the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 19, 2018 at 13:27 | comment | added | Simon Richter | IIRC the saucer has warp coils, but no warp core, so it can sustain a warp field (similar to photon torpedoes). The downside is that the separation has to occur during warp. | |
| Jun 21, 2016 at 19:27 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | @Shane: I suppose you could ostensibly leave the saucer behind then perform the Picard Maneuver with the stardrive section to surprise the vultures :) | |
| Dec 14, 2015 at 16:48 | comment | added | Sobrique | Warp a short way - either they pursue and lose half their firepower, or they don't and might as well not have warp. And then you can trivially hit and fade, launching a volley of torpedoes at the slow moving turkey and warp before they can return significant fire. | |
| Dec 14, 2015 at 15:58 | comment | added | Shane | @DevSolar Wanting the saucer safe and not in battle isn't a very good reason to not separate in battle. I can't see how you could take them hostage. At least, not how they are more susceptible to being taken hostage. Not being able to perform a quick retreat is a good point, that would have to be a big consideration. | |
| Dec 14, 2015 at 15:47 | comment | added | Shane | @Sobrique Engagements aren't fought at warp, so how does them not having warp allow you to threaten them? It still has impulse, shields, and weapons. And you really can't warp off and somehow move the fight away from the saucer. If you warp away, you've warped away. Except for warp -which isn't a tactical consideration - both sections are fairly close to equally capable. Not identically capable, but still. | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 8:23 | comment | added | Often Right | @DevSolar not exactly defenseless; see here | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 5:39 | comment | added | DevSolar | @Shane: What Sobrique said. And that saucer section holds the families of the tactical staff in the battle section. You want that saucer safe, not part of the battle, and not something the enemy can take hostage, so the battle section will have to consider the saucer section, continuously. No quick retreat when the battle goes sour, either. | |
| Dec 8, 2015 at 21:43 | comment | added | Sobrique | Because it's also a sitting duck, with no warp capability - you can threaten it and force an unfavourable engagement. Or leave it and move the fight away from it. Two ships of equal capability would be tactically advantageous. Splitting your firepower, and leaving some of it behind on something that can't keep up with the fight considerably less so. | |
| Dec 8, 2015 at 21:38 | comment | added | Shane | @DevSolar How is having two, independently maneuverable targets worse than one? Generally, outnumbering your opponent is a good thing. They could use the battle section to hammer the enemy, then when shields get low, switch so that the saucer section's shields take the hits while laying down enough phaser fire to keep the enemy's shields from recharging. Once the battle section's shields are back up and the torpedoes reloaded, switch back. Even if you didn't do it like that, it seems like having the enemy split its fire amongst 2 targets is a tactical advantage. | |
| Dec 8, 2015 at 18:49 | comment | added | DevSolar | @Richard: Which still nails the "battle part" with one foot to the floor. | |
| Dec 8, 2015 at 18:22 | comment | added | Valorum | @DevSolar - According to the TNG manual, the saucer was optimised for defensive operations. Basically they could run a higher strength shield. | |
| Dec 8, 2015 at 16:48 | comment | added | JAB | @DevSolar They eventually figured out the right way to do it, what with the Prometheus having THREE warp- and battle-capable sections. And being controllable by the EMH in a pinch. | |
| Dec 8, 2015 at 9:32 | comment | added | DevSolar | I think the saucer being vulnerable on its own is a very good in-universe explanation. Splitting up would result in two targets for an enemy to attack; one effectively defenseless and dead-in-space, the other tactically tied to the former. Overall, not a good situation to be in. I am sure that Starfleet designers would have thought of that before actually building the Enterprise that way... as opposed to, say, directors on the lookout for eye candy. ;-) | |
| Dec 8, 2015 at 8:57 | comment | added | Valorum | I'm reasonably certain that the stardrive section was more efficient in terms of speed and longevity. | |
| Dec 8, 2015 at 8:05 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 8, 2015 at 8:17 | |||||
| Dec 8, 2015 at 8:04 | history | answered | Miral | CC BY-SA 3.0 |