Dingle Fritz
Lieutenant
According to the Tech Manual the secondary hull has room for a second computer core, so there would be no loss of functionality in that regard.
Headless Galaxy Classes?
- Thread starter USSHermes
- Start date
A headless Galaxy class? Sorry, I'm not going to hold it in that long!
Dingle Fritz
Lieutenant
Makes as much sense as that Maquis Raider/Voyager abortion that we saw on screen.
What about the idea that in a time of conflict the Galaxy class could very well serve as a large troop transport with an optional orbital command base, the saucer, and the star drive for defense of it......
^ That is an interesting idea. And it would also be interesting if the Federation told Starfleet to build "expendable saucers" for mission-specific purposes. In other words, the Enterprise-D would be ordered to leave her "normal" saucer in orbit of a starbase so the crew and civilians on-board could continue their duties undisturbed. Meanwhile, the stardrive section would hook up with a mission-specific saucer hull, which could be full-sized or a much smaller version, depending on the mission and resources available. Captain Picard's mission would be to take the Enterprise-D's stardrive section, plus the "special mission module", to some distant frontier sector, and explore the area to find just the right place to jettison the module. Once jettisoned, the module could serve whatever functions it was built and equipped for.
The module could be a mini-starship, capable of low-speed operations between outposts on the frontier. Or the module could be a short-range recon vessel built to operate in a single sector. Or the module could be a prefab space station to be left in orbit above a new planet to be colonized. Or the module could be a massive docking array, to serve as both a space station upon arriving at its destination, and as a mobile dock for a bunch of smaller vessels that will use the dock as a frontier HQ.
Once the module is delivered to the destination, Captain Picard would take his ship back to starbase to pick up the saucer and proceed to his next assignment.
This kind of mission would call for a big starship like a Galaxy class if it required the abilities found in that class of ship. (Speed, or maybe range or size or protective capacities.) Some might say "why not use a freighter or a warptug?" but maybe slower or less capable starships of those classes wouldn't be sufficient for that specific mission. The whole point of building a class of starships like the Galaxy class, with the ability to separate, would be to use that ability creatively to get more ambitious jobs done.
The module could be a mini-starship, capable of low-speed operations between outposts on the frontier. Or the module could be a short-range recon vessel built to operate in a single sector. Or the module could be a prefab space station to be left in orbit above a new planet to be colonized. Or the module could be a massive docking array, to serve as both a space station upon arriving at its destination, and as a mobile dock for a bunch of smaller vessels that will use the dock as a frontier HQ.
Once the module is delivered to the destination, Captain Picard would take his ship back to starbase to pick up the saucer and proceed to his next assignment.
This kind of mission would call for a big starship like a Galaxy class if it required the abilities found in that class of ship. (Speed, or maybe range or size or protective capacities.) Some might say "why not use a freighter or a warptug?" but maybe slower or less capable starships of those classes wouldn't be sufficient for that specific mission. The whole point of building a class of starships like the Galaxy class, with the ability to separate, would be to use that ability creatively to get more ambitious jobs done.
The only reasonable explanation is that the saucer gives it stronger shields. In Star Trek, bigger is always stronger, at least in terms of shields it seems. DS9 is somewhat bigger than Galaxy, but it can withstand wave after wave of enemy attacks. On the other hand, smaller ships like Nebula (with arguably the same weapons) can't match the Galaxy 1v1, and even smaller ships like Miranda would stand no chance against Galaxy. Then you have runabouts, shuttles etc...
During massed fleet engagements, durability is key, since the ship will be facing multiple opponents, not just one it would do during normal separation situation. During normal situations, the star drive section can unload all it's weapons on a single opponent and destroy it before the enemy has time to seriously damage the shields. In fleet engagements, you destroy one enemy, there is plenty more to go. Hence, it is helpful that a ship's shields can withstand tremendous punishment.
During massed fleet engagements, durability is key, since the ship will be facing multiple opponents, not just one it would do during normal separation situation. During normal situations, the star drive section can unload all it's weapons on a single opponent and destroy it before the enemy has time to seriously damage the shields. In fleet engagements, you destroy one enemy, there is plenty more to go. Hence, it is helpful that a ship's shields can withstand tremendous punishment.
That might be the case for weapons and warp speed, but I don't think it rewrote the rules for shields. I think the ship is shown to have somewhat weak shields.
In WotW, it takes a couple of shots from B'rel BoP, and immediately afterward, its shields are weak enought that it can't withstand firepower from larger Vor'cha. They don't destroy it like they did BoP, but try to evade.
Larger Lakota almost takes its shields down in Paradise Lost.
Larger Dominon battleship destroys it.
It commonly engages small bugs, against whom it suffers decent damage, never large ships
I think Defiant's strengths are its impressive weapons, while it attempts to compensate for average shields through maneuverability and ablative armor.
But again, that's abandoning the original intent. The idea was that the ship was mainly a scientific research platform, that the saucer was dedicated to peacetime functions and the secondary hull was specifically designed to go into combat alone. It's illogical to say that the way to make a destroyer more protected in battle is to stick a research institute on top of it.
This is my problem with keeping the saucer on in combat. It's abandoning what Gene Roddenberry and Andrew Probert intended when they created the Galaxy-class design. It's something that was done purely for the convenience of the filmmakers, and any attempt to rationalize it is a retcon that requires ignoring the original design intentions.
After all, if the battle hull was intentionally designed to go into combat without the saucer, and if the saucer was intentionally designed to be left out of any combat situations, why in the world would the ship accidentally end up being more combat-capable with the saucer attached? How the hell could that possibly happen, when according to the TNG Tech Manual they spent over two decades refining this design? It just doesn't make sense.
Oh, how many times I yelled that at the screen during episodes of the various Berman Treks.
It could be a case of the designers not recognising how the ship would operate in practice. How often have we seen chief engineers taking something which was meant to have a set purpose and changing it in a way that no one had anticipated. It could be that when Galaxy class starships started getting into combat situations, Captains and/or engineers started finding was of making the ship more powerful but had to keep the saucer attached to the ship.
Or maybe it's a case of raw tonnage. With a giant saucer they could physically attach more weapons arrays to them in the DOM war.
only problem is saucer wasnt designed to land on anything. what we saw in Generations was a controlled crash. it would collapse under its own weight on the surface of a planet.
Dingle Fritz
Lieutenant
Well THAT saucer wasn't designed to land under THOSE conditions and return to orbit, that was a sort of last ditch survival mode.
No reason why our Trek Engineers couldn't make a saucer that could land and take off again at will.
No reason why our Trek Engineers couldn't make a saucer that could land and take off again at will.
The saucer in Generations was damaged in battle and forced by circumstances into the atmosphere, so that wasn't the emergency grounding written of in the TNG tech manual. A specially designed saucer, combined with a surveyed and prepared landing site, maybe even a water landing, would be able to land safely and take off again.
Dingle Fritz
Lieutenant
Bingo. If they can land something the size of Voyager they can land a saucer and make it take off again.
The manual does state that an emergency ditching like that would result in the saucer being wrecked beyond recovery... I like the concept of a water landing for sure. I think there was a numbered novel where this happened.
Yeah. Rouge Saucer.
Ideal dream "Next Evolution" saucer design for new build Galaxy Class ships: Integrated warp drive for speeds in excess of warp four. Full long range sensor and navigation deflector. Enhanced forward firing launchers for multimission payloads (probes and torps). Ability to land and take off from standard Class M planets.
Anything else we need?
Galaxy herself was at the Battle of Chin'toka (sic).
The manual does state that an emergency ditching like that would result in the saucer being wrecked beyond recovery... I like the concept of a water landing for sure. I think there was a numbered novel where this happened.
Yeah. Rouge Saucer.
No, Rogue Saucer. Rouge means red.
Dingle Fritz
Lieutenant
The manual does state that an emergency ditching like that would result in the saucer being wrecked beyond recovery... I like the concept of a water landing for sure. I think there was a numbered novel where this happened.
Yeah. Rouge Saucer.
No, Rogue Saucer. Rouge means red.
Thank you I get those two confused.
Similar threads
