Of Saucers, Undercuts, & Sensors

[Retroneon]

Studio models don't always have a fictional purpose for all of their details. But fans have enjoyed speculating them for many years. Starfleet ships are more scrutinized because they're supposed to be highly functional vessels. So when no one can specutale what a detail does, it becomes a huge point of contention. And probably no other detail has become more questionable than the saucer undercut. I'd like to take jab at coming up with a function for it.

I don't know where the main sensor actually is. Can the deflector dish simultaneously project a field, and intercept signals? The planetary sensor is at the bottom of the saucer. It might actually be the main sensor. But it's small. To increase signal reception, you could mount a large parabolic dish behind it. Perhaps the saucer shape was chosen to integrate and maximize the dish into the superstructure.

Having an upside down bowl would reduce habitable space. So it was flattened. Only the concave ring around the outer edge would bounce signals back. The usable signals bounce back in the shape of a cone, with the planetary sensor at the tip. Everything inside that cone would not block sensors. So the void was filled with living space. That's why there's an extended cone on the bottom of the saucer.

For modelers always looking to try something new, would you like to paint a copper ring around the bottom of the saucer?

Perhaps a TOS ship is supposed to orbit an object with the ventral side pointed toward that object. On the Constitution-class, the windows on the saucer rim are angled downwards.

---

The lip of the undercut creates a different kind of wasted space. Now there's a circular corridor that is isolated from the rest of the ship. The only thing you could install there, might be a large arc of pipes. And that's actually kind of cool. It could be a particle accelerator. The machinery could be tied into the impulse engines and neck. And it would produce exotic particles. That's a second possible reason why the ship has a saucer section.

---

Later on, sensors were placed all over newer ships. The undercut no longer became necessary. And the leading edge of saucers were later angled upwards, to help generate negative pressure over the ventral surface in an atmosphere. I wonder how well the shape would work as a frisbee.

---

Scientists speculate that a real projection shield might be composed of plasma. I doubt it would ever be as strong as a solid wall. But it's interesting to think of shields in Star Trek being composed of plasma too. The warp grills glow blue with plasma. Perhaps deflectors glow blue using the same plasma. The deflector grid might generate a field which constrains the plasma.

 

[Albertese]

It's an interesting idea. As I recall, Matt Jefferies, the ship's designer, intended the undercut to be a sort of airfoil to aid the saucer in emergency landing. Though if my understanding of how airfoils work is right, this design would produce negative lift so maybe another reason is worth exploring. But I don't think it'd be to reflect signal to that lower dome. It's much too shallow to bounce anything anywhere near that structure.

--Alex

 

[Timo]

Can the deflector dish simultaneously project a field, and intercept signals?

It could be argued that mounting the sensors right next to a device that projects a FTL field for timely deflection of obstacles is a very smart move, as the same FTL field would give the sensors the boost they need to defeat the lightspeed barrier and provide realtime information.

Perhaps a TOS ship is supposed to orbit an object with the ventral side pointed toward that object. On the Constitution-class, the windows on the saucer rim are angled downwards.

This clever idea is a bit at odds with the fact that the ship is always shown orbiting in a very different orientation, with one side (typically port) pointing towards the planet. (Internal viewscreen imagery is tilted wrt this, though, showing the planet below.)

Actually, the "ship orbiting" photography often suggests that the ship actually is making relatively tight turns, thousands of times tighter than what would be required to keep one side pointed towards the planet while circling the planet along a circular or elliptical path. Perhaps the ship is actually "orbiting" in the aircraft rather than spacecraft sense, flying figure eights above the spot where the landing party is having adventures or where the planetary sensors need to be pointed?

An alternate theory on the undercut is that it doesn't focus radiation to or from the central dome, but does deflect something else - perhaps the rocket blast of a system designed to soften the final stages of an emergency landing.

And it would produce exotic particles.

Or perhaps project a donut-shaped forcefield to protect the ship from enemy fire?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Retroneon]

Well, I think the film crew simply felt it would look dramatic to see the side of the ship, with a planet in the background.

The undercut on the studio model really is too shallow to reflect signals to the lower dome. But if it wasn't, could such a shape be a viable satellite dish?

Without the lower cone, Would there be enough of an air pocket to help cushion a landing?

All the other ships in the galaxy could just as well use particle accelerators, but in a linear shape.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I always figured that starships had numerous sensor and communication arrays embedded within their hulls, working together to create a 360-degree field of coverage, with the shape of the hull having less to do with modern-day practicality but more with "subspace field dynamics" and even just the particular aesthetics of the time to a degree...

 

[Timo]

Interestingly, Kirk's ship seems to have three glowing domes for nice all-around coverage - all positioned in immediate proximity of locations that are seen emitting phaser beams in TOS (lower saucer), TAS (on top of bridge) or ENT (on top of shuttlebay).

It would be easy to interpret these domes as phaser fire control systems, then - and their later absence as development parallel to the one that took place in the naval world between the airings of TOS and the TOS movies, in which numerous individual parabolic dish antennas on missile-firing warships were replaced by large integrated phased arrays.

Only one of the domes would enjoy the supposed benefits of the saucer concavity, though, thus undermining the benefit concept.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Wingsley]

Another possibility is that the hulls of Federation "starcruiser" Class I starships evolved over time to improve the design in terms of (1: application of higher warp speeds, (2: incorporating more curvaceous shapes to increase structural strength, and (3: the curvy shapes provide additional space for packing in equipment modules, "Jefferies tubes", piping and the like to increase living space on the "main decks" of the ship.

 

[blssdwlf]

Just a silly thought - perhaps there is something built into the saucer undercut area that is also used to attract weapons fire away from the critical engines / secondary hull? In "Errand of Mercy" long-range Klingon fire seemed to be attracted to exclusively the bottom of the primary hull. In "The Undiscovered Country", I think all of Chang's torpedoes hit the primary hull - even though at that range he should have got an easy hit on the more vulnerable nacelles or secondary hull

 

[Timo]

Then again, the teeth of a Constitution are in her saucer. In "Errand of Mercy", the Klingon volley hit right next to the phaser and torpedo launchers of the ship, and the "antimatter pods" (supposedly the ones providing the torpedoes with their deadly warhead contents). A more penetrating volley in that spot would have ruptured rather than buckled the pods, and the ship would have been ripped apart and rendered unbattleworthy.

Even in the TOS movies, most of the armament of the ship is located in the saucer. So is the bridge, admittedly a potentially non-unique command center with backups elsewhere, but still home to the genius that devises superior strategies and last-second survival plans. Striking at the saucer is a generally good idea, certainly as good as striking at the nacelles (especially if you might wish to claim the ship as a prize afterwards). And striking from the bottom allows you to hit more of the crucial and vulnerable weapons, even if it also exposes you to more return fire if your cloak happens to fail... Not to mention that striking from below is always the villainy thing to do!

...Which may be why the good guys have concentrated their armament below.

Timo Saloniemi