So, why did the Galaxy class never undergo saucer separation prior to battles in the Dominion War?

For defense. A battleship is not just a ship that's capable of battle, it's a ship that's intended specifically for battle above or to the exclusion of all other functions. The Enterprise's combat capability was intended to be a last resort when all else failed. Being able to defend yourself is not the same thing as actively picking fights.

Which, again, was an erosion of the original intent. I'm talking about why the creators of TNG chose to depict it as a ship with civilians and families aboard, and gave it the ability to separate in their defense. It's unfortunate that later creators neglected that intention and portrayed it in a way that made the presence of civilians harder to justify.

That's still operating from the assumption that the ship was intended for battle as a regular thing. Combat was something to be avoided if at all possible, not something the ship was specifically made to optimize.

There's a risk of surprise attack on anything, such as a colony town or a starbase.

In the event of a surprise attack, the priority would be to get away and keep the crew safe. If necessary, as in "Arsenal," the battle hull could then separate and return to deal with the threat.

I'm amused because I've been watching early Super Sentai (the basis of Power Rangers) lately, and in every single episode they drag the story to a halt to spend a minute or more on the stock-footage sequence of the giant vehicles deploying, unfolding, and combining into a giant robot. It's all about what you're used to....

 

And the original intended mission is not what we saw on screen, so it's irrelevant. The minute the Enterprise started encountering beings that could hurl it across the galaxy and getting sent to the Romulan Neutral Zone flashpoints, civilians should have been off-loaded and it was negligent of Starfleet to do so. As for Starfleet officers being separated from their families, they knew what being in Starfleet entailed when they signed up and we know from the ds9 episode 'the sound of her voice' that Starfleet was sending out crews on long term deep space missions without families onboard. That episode is also perfect example of why families should not be on starships even when they are undertaking research missions.

 

It's relevant to the question of why the idea of saucer separation and civilians in the crew was developed in the first place, as I said. What we saw on screen was the result of the disconnect between that intention and the execution, which is why it's so difficult to come up with a coherent in-universe explanation for how it was portrayed. Sometimes you need to consider the real-world context behind a creative work to understand why things are the way they're shown to be in the story.

I still don't buy that argument. If they'd done a show that was set on a planetary outpost instead of a starship, then the planet would still have come under regular attack from superbeings and enemy warships and mystery plagues, because that's how adventure fiction works. No location in a fictional universe is safer than any other, except one that the characters never go to or hear about. But they're not going to evacuate all the civilians from a whole planet.

And again, we let children ride in cars and buses every day despite how many fatal traffic accidents there are every day. You can't eradicate all risk from people's lives -- you can just manage it the best you can.

In real life, military personnel take their families with them to foreign postings all the time. Not everything the military does involves a state of constant war. Yes, they evacuate their families if things get dangerous, but the rest of the time, they lead normal lives with them as best they can. They're part of a community. They aren't just duty and discipline 24/7 for five or ten or fifteen years on end. You'd never be able to populate a volunteer military if it were that stringent, if it denied basic human social needs to such a preposterously extreme degree. Especially if it's only a pseudo-military service like Starfleet whose personnel are mostly scientists, technicians, and diplomats rather than hardened fighters.

By that logic, ENT: "The Expanse" is a perfect example of why families shouldn't be allowed to live in Florida, and Star Trek 2009 is a perfect example of why families shouldn't be allowed to live on Vulcan. No place is perfectly safe forever.

 

I just assumed that the reason we rarely saw the D's saucer separate, was just because it would have slowed down the story. TPTB probably never anticipated how boring it would be to just sit there for 5 minutes while we watched Saucer A reconnect with Hull B.

Or to rephrase:

There will be no more isolation
In our Saucer Separation
You touched Starfleet so deeply, you rescued me
Now free me

As for the Dominion War: I heard that many of the Galaxy-class ships we saw in the DS9 battle scenes were 1) dedicated warships which happened to use the basic Galaxy motif, and/or 2) rushed into battle with some of their inner workings unfinished. So for either of these reasons, those ships might not have even HAD the ability to separate their saucers.

 

I'm not at all convinced Starfleet ever intended the saucer to be used for evacuating the civilians.

I mean, when it comes up as an option in "Farpoint", it's made to sound as if Picard were coming up with this clever thing all on his own, and surprising his crew with the idea. The second time it is suggested, by Riker in "Heart of Glory", it's shot down by Picard. And in "Arsenal of Freedom", it's again a surprise move by LaForge.

That the ship would fight better without the saucer is said once, by Worf in "Heart of Glory". In light of what we learn later, it may well be he was flat out lying to these suspicious characters who were touring the ship with him... For all we know, the saucer only separates for the usual purpose of evacuating the whole crew in disastrous situations, although Starfleet now experiments with this all-new redocking system for purposes unknown (perhaps testing for MVAM?).

That Galaxies would be the first or only ships with kids and families aboard is a conclusion we might draw since Picard hasn't had to suffer those things before coming aboard one. The Saratoga proves that wrong, though.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Depends on the tour of duty. Military members usually go for 6 months up to a year without there families.
So a border Patrol for 3-6 months wouldn't have family on board.
Even the Tos 5 year mission stopped at bases and planets, even take vacations.
So there are times where a family isn't there, but during The it's realitivly peaceful. So immediate families are allowed. As long as they have a job maybe?
What gets me is the Saratoga at wolf 359. Why in the F were jake and Sisko wife on the ship? Could have taken not 5 minutes to stop, load up civilians on shuttles, and have a ship pick them up latter.

 

Because the ship looks cooler in one piece.

 

The counter-argument I have to the idea that saucer separation would hurt the pacing of the episodes is the Stargate TV shows. In the original movie, dialing the stargate was an involved process with lots of technical mission-control drama to it, not unlike the saucer separation in "Farpoint." As the show went on, though, everything concerning the stargate as a means of transport was elided more and more to the point that the first spin-off show, Stargate Atlantis, didn't bother building a second portable stargate setpiece for alien planet locations and sets, just using CGI to paint one in when needed, and typically plopping the team into some forest, quarry, or village without any visual indication of how they got there, and rarely even using the stargate on their main sets as a visual focal point the way they had on SG-1. The producers realized they'd gone a bit too far in that direction (they noted there'd been a distinct lack of "romancing the gate" in recent years in the commentary for the follow-up direct-to-DVD movie), and did include a little more actual stargate-ing in the second spin-off.

My point is, if they'd been committed to the premise, they would've gotten to the point where they'd be doing saucer separations in a cut and a stock establishing shot, without even needing to mention it in the captain's log voiceover, because it would just be something that happens that often in the show. Which I would've welcomed, since I think the Galaxy saucer is way too big, and the ship looks better separated. Together, especially from the front, it looks like an anglerfish, with the vestigial little engineering section and nacelles dangling off the back.

 

I remember Ben Browder complaining the first time Mitchell goes off-world, they don't actually show him going through the gate for the first time. Which really should have been a big deal for him.

 

Yes, that's probably true. The more the audience gets used to it, the more you can streamline it.

Then again, there were shows not that long before TNG that did rely on regular stock sequences -- e.g. The Incredible Hulk showing Banner's Startling Metamorphosis into the Hulk twice an episode. I'm not sure I buy the "interrupts the flow" argument. Especially since, as I keep pointing out, the intent was that the saucer would be separated before a battle, not during.

 

They get another torpedo tube and another phaser strip by separating

 

Always made sense to me that a long range exploration ship would be able to offload scientists and civilians in the saucer section to take refuge in a safe place in instances where the ship was in extreme danger.
During the war, I would assume most exploration would stop and all the science folks and civvies would be sent home, negating the need to separate those kinds of ships. Galaxy class ships must have seemed pretty empty during the war. I'd bet you would close down many empty decks to conserve resources.

 

All the more reason it would've made more sense to leave the saucers off altogether, or replace them with more compact, battle-oriented saucers. The only reasons they kept the saucers were real-world practical and aesthetic considerations pertaining to the miniature. In-story, it didn't make sense at all. (I felt the same way about the alternate E-D in "Yesterday's Enterprise." No way would a ship built in a war-torn timeline have the same cruise-ship-cum-research-vessel design as the Galaxy class; the only reason it did was because they didn't have the budget to build a new miniature or radically alter the sets.)

 

In the case of the "Yesterday's Enterprise" timeline, I should think that the Galaxy class ships would have already been under construction at the time the war began, and where the Prime ones had family quarters, childcare and education facilities, and labs, the YE version would have MACO quarters, a large stock of small arms, and heavier ship's weaponry. As I recall, it was actually in the Writers' Guide that the Enterprise D had large areas of unfinished space, to allow for continual mission-specific outfitting.

 

Per the TNG Technical Manual, 2344 was only a year after the Galaxy-class design process began and six years before the Enterprise began construction. Even if we take Picard's line in YE literally and assume the war didn't begin in earnest until 2346, that would still have been early enough in the design process that the shift from exploration to war as a priority should have affected the ship's design in many ways.

 

Long range exploration would probably take the ship to distant places where the odds of finding a "safe" hideout for the saucer would be low, though. If extreme danger is spotted, it probably also spots the heroes, and it's too late for half the ship to hide if the whole ship can't.

Plus, it's usually the scientists who save the ship when extreme danger descends upon them. And the cute kids keep the parents interested in completing the mission and saving the ship. If the ship has truly "non-essential personnel" aboard, the prudent thing might be to kick them out before the ship even sails...

Timo Saloniemi

 

In YE, Tasha says that the Enterprise-D was "the first Galaxy-class warship built by the Federation". So it would seem that the actual USS Galaxy, in the alternate timeline, was much the same as the real one; it wasn't until the Enterprise that the construction really diverged.

Meaning, the Galaxy wasn't a warship, but the rest of the ships of that class were.

(And yes, there IS a USS Galaxy. We see it during a few of the battle scenes. And it's named - but not actually seen - in NEM, as part of Battle Group Omega)