• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Can a Galaxy-class saucer land "properly?"

Admiral Jean-Luc Picard

Commodore
Commodore
I get the Galaxy-class saucer can soft-land in an emergency, like a "saucer goes down, does not go back up" scenario. Presumably, the Ent-D saucer went down so hard due to crashing computers from the space battle and warp core breach shockwave. However, I have a question. Could the saucer come down on landing legs strong enough to support the saucer's weight? Without the saucer, can the battle section come down on landing legs too?

I'm not asking about behind the scenes; I'm asking more in a fun "what if" kind of way.
 
I don't think the saucer section of a Galaxy-class even has landing legs to begin with but a series of underside cargo doors instead. I think it's too big and too heavy as it currently is and would have to be redesigned (it'd need to be smaller for starters, IMO). As it's presently designed, it would need enormous landing legs and plenty of them to support all that weight in a 1-gee environment, so I think it'd need to be redesigned anyway.
 
Not according to the old TNG Tech Manual, which even goes so far to state that if a Galaxy saucer did make an emergency crash landing on a planet, it's never coming back. Though we see that's been disregarded in modern times.
 
The ship was built in space so it may not have occurred to the designers at the time.
Was it?
0qDA8YZ.jpeg
 
Of course, who knows what the deal is with starship landing struts, considering that the ones that we see emerge from Voyager have no business supporting the weight of the ship anyway...

But yeah, I'd guess that the idea with the saucer making planetfall is that it was always meant as an emergency last ditch effort at crew survival and that there was no way for the ship to take off unassisted again. Though there could be a hope that the shuttles and/or the secondary hull tractor beams would be able to pull the saucer up afterwards, but only in the event that, say, the landing was controlled enough that the saucer didn't leave a kilometers-long skid mark in its wake.
 
Except isn't that:

1. Not the Enterprise.
2. From one of the alternate realities in Parallels.

Whereas we see a simulation of "our" Enterprise D still under construction in space in Booby Trap.

I'm not saying that the Ent-D never touched soil, or that the thought never occurred to the designers...just that the image there doesn't really tell us anything definitive.
 
From one of the alternate realities in Parallels.
Been a minute, but Worf didn't seem to react to the image of a Galaxy class being built on the surface of Mars.
Whereas we see a simulation of "our" Enterprise D still under construction in space in Booby Trap
What that ever stated to absolutely be The Enterprise in the background, or was it the prototype, the actual USS Galaxy? I honestly can't remember.

Discovery has shown us that large Starships have been built at surface shipyards. I've always subscribed to the idea that individual components are built on the ground and then assembled together in orbit.
 
Worf didn't seem to react to the image of a Galaxy class being built on the surface of Mars.
Like I said, I'm not saying that the ship never got built on the surface. Maybe some are. Or maybe many of them are done partially on the surface and partially in space?

What that ever stated to absolutely be The Enterprise in the background, or was it the prototype, the actual USS Galaxy? I honestly can't remember.
I can't remember either. You've got me there. :)

Edit: Looking at the transcript, I think you're right. Prototype. :bolian:
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top