Crashing the Saucer on a Planet

[Tallguy]

So this morning I was listening to Saturday Morning Treks about the Ambergris Element. They mention a crashed shuttle and I started thinking about budget and scope.

Then I started thinking about Starship Exeter's episode The Tresaurian Intersection where they find the saucer another starship dramatically wrecked on a barren world.

Then I thought about Star Trek Beyond where we see the saucer of the Enterprise dramatically wrecked on a barren world.

Then I though about Star Trek: Generations where we see the saucer of the Enterprise dramatically wrecked on a barr-- er, pretty nice looking world.

How far back does the history of saucer crashing go? The first place I can recall encountering it was back in Star Fleet Battles where a ship separated and the saucer hid out under an ocean for a chunk of whatever Klingon war they were fighting.

I mean, it does look cool as hell, doesn't it?

 

[shatastrophic]

Pretty far, at least to the D tech manual, what was that, 30 years?

 

[Forbin]

Heck, it dates to the very beginning - Jefferies designed the TOS E so the saucer could sep in an emergency, and the concave underside was there to hint at aerodynamics for emergency atmospheric flight and landing. Those triangles under the saucer are landing gear doors. No, it never happened in TOS, but the consideration for it was there from the start.

 

[Tallguy]

Yes yes yes. But they never land. They always crash!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Kirk discussed what we now call saucer separation in "The Apple":

KIRK: Then use your imagination. Tie every ounce of power the ship has into the impulse engines. Discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to, and crack out of there with the main section, but get that ship out of there!​

 

[Space Coast]

You aren't allowed to call yourself a legendary captain unless you crash the ship at least once.

 

[Kor]

Kirk discussed what we now call saucer separation in "The Apple":

KIRK: Then use your imagination. Tie every ounce of power the ship has into the impulse engines. Discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to, and crack out of there with the main section, but get that ship out of there!​

To me, that always sounded like the saucer and the engineering hull would still be together, with no more warp nacelles.

Kor

 

[Space Coast]

To me, that always sounded like the saucer and the engineering hull would still be together, with no more warp nacelles.

Kor

You could argue that point, though I don't see that happening. Sure, the warp nacelles look detachable, but with them gone why would you keep the hull to begin with? IIRC the hulls on most Starfleet ships don't have propulsion systems of their own (besides maneuvering thrusters, which don't count) and the impulse engines are in the saucer. So keeping the engineering hull would just be dead weight.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

To me, that always sounded like the saucer and the engineering hull would still be together, with no more warp nacelles.

Kor

I thought "main section" suggested saucer; the nomenclature is completely parallel to "primary hull."

 

[uniderth]

You could argue that point, though I don't see that happening. Sure, the warp nacelles look detachable, but with them gone why would you keep the hull to begin with? IIRC the hulls on most Starfleet ships don't have propulsion systems of their own (besides maneuvering thrusters, which don't count) and the impulse engines are in the saucer. So keeping the engineering hull would just be dead weight.

Not necessarily. You get to keep the shuttlecraft and possibly a really cool bowling alley.

Joking aside count me in with the "main section" meaning primary and secondary hulls crowd. Kirk mentions only jettisoning the warp drive nacelles and not the engineering hull. There are plenty of other goodies in that section that might make keeping it a good idea.

 

[CommanderTrip]

IIRC there were even discussions of making the Enterprise E saucer seperate at some point during one of the TNG movie productions. Maybe Nemesis. I remember seeing concept art on the web, but I'm unsure of how official it was.

 

[BillJ]

Joking aside count me in with the "main section" meaning primary and secondary hulls crowd. Kirk mentions only jettisoning the warp drive nacelles and not the engineering hull. There are plenty of other goodies in that section that might make keeping it a good idea.

But you would want to limit the mass you have to account for escaping Vaal. Jettisoning just the nacelles would seem to make little difference there.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But you would want to limit the mass you have to account for escaping Vaal. Jettisoning just the nacelles would seem to make little difference there.

Little difference or no, you'd want to minimize mass for sure. The saucer was intended to be a self-contained spacecraft with impulse drive. They were attempting to use impulse, so it makes sense that in the pinch the idea was to try to escape with just the saucer.

 

[wayoung]

Unless jettisoning the warp nacelles would cause the brussard collectors to expel unprocessed and explosive chemicals into an unstable warp field generated by a secondary hull with no nacelles causing a momentary jump in thrust, propelling the primary and secondary hulls to safety!

Or it was the sixties and nobody really gave a crap about this stuff at the time.

 

[BillJ]

Unless jettisoning the warp nacelles would cause the brussard collectors to expel unprocessed and explosive chemicals into an unstable warp field generated by a secondary hull with no nacelles causing a momentary jump in thrust, propelling the primary and secondary hulls to safety!

I've been watching since 1975, and that is gibberish to me.

Or it was the sixties and nobody really gave a crap about this stuff at the time.

Most folks still don't care.

 

[uniderth]

Unless jettisoning the warp nacelles would cause the brussard collectors

Nope. The nacelle domes were not brussards, nor were they bussards.

 

[Forbin]

You could argue that point, though I don't see that happening. Sure, the warp nacelles look detachable, but with them gone why would you keep the hull to begin with? IIRC the hulls on most Starfleet ships don't have propulsion systems of their own (besides maneuvering thrusters, which don't count) and the impulse engines are in the saucer. So keeping the engineering hull would just be dead weight.

Well, except for the 150 people who work there, and the cargo hold, and shuttlecraft, and...

 

[wayoung]

I've been watching since 1975, and that is gibberish to me.

The best techno babble is

 

[Forbin]

In the weight mention above - I've always thought the nacelles would be the heaviest components of the whole ship, what with being full of massive electromagnetic warp coils. Ditching just them should make the ship a whole lot lighter.

 

[Space Coast]

Well, except for the 150 people who work there, and the cargo hold, and shuttlecraft, and...

Plenty of room in any decent saucer, and if situations are bad enough to warrant separation, the cargo hold is the least of one's worries.

Unless it's full of explosives.