Saucer sections and warp drive

[gastrof]

How many of you think it's just plain STUPID for Starfleet, in any generation, to have saucer sections that can detach, but then be limited to sublight flight?

It makes no sense to me.

You're in deep, inter-stellar space.

You're in a bad situation, and for some reason have to put some distance between the crew and the warp generating section of the ship.

You evacuate the lower section, detach the saucer, and fly away.

NOW where do you go?

You're limited to impulse, and if it can get anywhere near light speed not only do you risk serious time discontinuities between ship time and real time, it'll still take you FOREVER to get anywhere.

If impulse CAN'T get you near light speed, then the problem's even worse.

I mean, I still don't quite get how the Enterprise-D's saucer made it to Farpoint Station in the TNG opener.

To have the saucer serve as an emergency lifeboat, with the understanding that nobody really expects it'll get anywhere on its own, that's one thing. With what happened in "...Farpoint" (and one other episode?), it's implied that the saucer isn't all that stuck if left on its own.

I just don't get it.

Comments?

 

[Sisu]

But then, presuming that warp drives are expensive to resource (generating antimatter, deuterium etc) and / or radioactive (thus need to be away from the hull), why duplicate those resources on the saucer if they are to be used only occasionally?

In all the Trek's, damage either occurs so quickly that the whole ship is destroyed (thus negating any use of the saucer as a lifeboat), or the separation is a last ditch attempt to keep the crew safe.

 

[HRHTheKING]

It makes little sense for a huge saucer section to not have warp drive.

 

[Timo]

Then again, if that saucer did have a warp drive, it would make no sense to attach it to another section that also has warp drive.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Gen. Jack O'Neill]

Cruise ships carry lifeboats with small engines. Do you think they also carry enough fuel to cross 3000 miles of ocean?

That's what a distress call is for. Saucer separation is an emergency maneuver to get the crew as far from the stardrive section as possible and sustain life in the event of a catastrophic situation. It's only real purpose is to keep the crew alive until rescue can arrive and assist.

 

[votd]

Didn't the saucer remain in warp for a while in Farpoint because the detachment was done at warp?

The saucer does have warp capable shuttles too though obviously not enough to evacuate the ship.

 

[Timo]

Canonically, we know very little about the warp capabilities of the Galaxy class saucer, and basically nothing about the capabilities of other saucers. But yes, we do know that the Enterprise-D saucer was able to backtrack in a couple of hours or at most a day the same journey that took the stardrive section at least a few minutes at extreme warp (9+). So the saucer appears to be able to sustain at least medium warp for the better part of a day.

There's no actual technobabble reason why the Galaxy saucer couldn't have a full set of warp engines aboard. Not all warp drives need external, nacelle-mounted coils; many have recessed or cowled systems with just some blue-glowing "field windows", and the Galaxy saucer does have such glowy bits.

The reason for not installing a "fully functional" warp drive on a saucer is more of doctrinal nature: why should two independently warp-capable ships be joined at the hip? That rather idiotically limits their potential. Better to just build two separate ships that can be sent on two different missions whenever needed.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[RoJoHen]

Even if they were tiny warp engines only capable of Warp 1, they should still be there. It is kind of silly that they don't exist.

 

[Timo]

...But nobody has ever said that they don't!

That is, nobody who is "real" to the Trek universe has said so on screen. There is no dialogue in TNG to suggest that the saucer wouldn't be capable of moving at warp speed, be it independently or after a bit of a kick from the stardrive section. There is just one ambiguous bit about the saucer being forced out of warp in two minutes if Picard and pals savagely sever it from the stardrive section in "Brothers", but that could involve all sorts of special circumstances (one of these being that the saucer only had a crew of one; another being that the rest of the crew was endeavoring to prevent the saucer from remaining at warp).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Stardate]

gastrof is absolute right. It makes no sense and scold really be impossible for Saucer to detach in warp if it doesn't have warp drive. It also doesn't have deflector disk either so of it had warp capabilities, doesn't it need deflector disk to go to warp. If not why is then deflector disk on almost every Star Trek ships.
I found separation stupid idea now thou it was cool when i saw it first.

 

[John Picard]

Timo said:
...But nobody has ever said that they don't!

That is, nobody who is "real" to the Trek universe has said so on screen. There is no dialogue in TNG to suggest that the saucer wouldn't be capable of moving at warp speed, be it independently or after a bit of a kick from the stardrive section. There is just one ambiguous bit about the saucer being forced out of warp in two minutes if Picard and pals savagely sever it from the stardrive section in "Brothers", but that could involve all sorts of special circumstances (one of these being that the saucer only had a crew of one; another being that the rest of the crew was endeavoring to prevent the saucer from remaining at warp).

Timo Saloniemi

IIRC, the shuttles are capable of Warp 2 and runners at DS9 are capable of Warp 3. But, it would make sense that the saucer is not capable of Warp as it is made up of living spaces, eating facilities, and storage.

 

[Timo]

But that's what the shuttles are made up of, too.

Officially, we have heard no performance specs. Indirectly, dialogue suggests a bit less than warp five for the runabouts, and at least one shuttle type is said to be capable of warp four. Something like that would probably be available for the saucer section as well, as per "Encounter at Farpoint", but there might be limitations in other respects besides speed.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[votd]

The Prometheus Saucer had 2 tiny warp nacelles mounted dorsally and ventrally - but does the size of a nacelle determine the maximum speed?

 

[DumbDumb2007]

The Saucer section should have low warp capability.

 

[librarytrekker78]

In regards to this discussion, I'd like to provide a little semi-canonical information from the TNG Technical Manual for both the question of saucer deflector "disk" and saucer module & warp.

The following is a direct quote from the Tech Manual about Saucer Module deflectors:

When the Enterprise is operating in Separated Flight Mode, the main deflector obviously services the Battle Section. The Saucer Module is equipped with four fixed-focus navigational deflectors for use in such cases. These medium power units also serve as a backup to the main deflector when the ship is connected, and are located on the underside of the Saucer Module, just fore of the lower transporter emitter arrays.

Source: Sternbach, Rick and Michael Okuda. Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual; Chapter 7, Section 4 – Navigational Deflector. 1991. Pocket Books: New York. p.88

Also here is a link to an image of the saucer deflector:

Saucer Deflector Image

Next is some info about the Saucer Module and Warp from the Manual:

Prior to leaving the protection of the Battle Section’s warp field, the Saucer Module SIF, IDF, and shield grid are run at high output, and its four forward deflectors take over to sweep away debris in the absence of the dish on the Battle Section (See 7.4). Decaying warp field energy surrounding the Saucer Module is managed by the driver coil segments of the impulse engines. This energy will take, on average, two minutes to dissipate and bring the vehicle to its original sublight velocity.

Source: Sternbach, Rick and Michael Okuda. Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual; Chapter 2, Section 7 – Saucer Module Separation Systems. 1991. Pocket Books: New York. p.28

I realize that the source is only semi-canonical, but it's all I've got and you can't ignore the fact that it is by Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda.

 

[HRHTheKING]

Cruise ships carry lifeboats with small engines. Do you think they also carry enough fuel to cross 3000 miles of ocean?

The saucer section does not equate to a cruise ship lifeboat.

A starship lifeboat equates to a cruise ship lifeboat.

A runabout has at least SOME warp capability.

Yet a saucer section many times larger does not?

It makes no sense. Even a low warp capable engine would be better than nothing at all.

 

[Timo]

Well, a runabout today has mobility that a far larger oil drilling platform lacks...

Sure, there are special uses for oil drilling platforms that can move to drilling locations on their own. But in most cases, it is far more useful to build immobile platforms, or platforms with stationkeeping thrusters only.

And the saucer of a Galaxy certainly sounds like it would nicely do without (fully independent) warp drive, considering that it is bolted to the best warp drive system the Federation has to offer some 99% of the time.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

Perhaps a solution for this could be that a saucer can sustain a warp field after splitting off from the stardrive section but can't generate one of its own.

But then, I've always really kind of believed that separating a ship at warp was never standard procedure and that under ideal conditions, the saucer would only be separated near a planet (to land on) anyway...

 

[John Picard]

C.E. Evans said:
Perhaps a solution for this could be that a saucer can sustain a warp field after splitting off from the stardrive section but can't generate one of its own.

But then, I've always really kind of believed that separating a ship at warp was never standard procedure and that under ideal conditions, the saucer would only be separated near a planet (to land on) anyway...

Based on what we saw in Generations[/b], even taking away the destruction of the Star Drive section, I do not believe the saucer has the ability to land on planets. I know there was a novel where I believe that was supposed to be tested. Was it Rogue Saucer?

Either way, those who state the a runabout and shuttle are comprised of living and storage space are missing the point. Those two craft are very small, and everything inside is built to accommodate that. The saucer is the main living/storage/working section of a Federation starship. The saucer is not built for battle, but more so to the point that Enterprise 1707-D now carries families, all of whom need space in the saucer. It does make more sense, from a logistics and engineering standpoint that the saucer would have engines capable only of sublight, as the saucer's purpose, when separated from the Stardrive section, is to take non-essential personnel to safety.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Jolly_St_Picard said:

C.E. Evans said:
But then, I've always really kind of believed that separating a ship at warp was never standard procedure and that under ideal conditions, the saucer would only be separated near a planet (to land on) anyway...

Based on what we saw in Generations, even taking away the destruction of the Star Drive section, I do not believe the saucer has the ability to land on planets.

The crash-landing of the Enterprise-D's saucer in Generations was exactly that--a crash-landing. There was very little helm control, so it didn't land under the best of conditions, IMO. Under a controlled descent, I think the saucer would have descended slowly, perhaps even hovered for awhile, and then chose a soft spot for it to gently land upon. There is also the possibility of the saucer landing in an ocean too.

Either way, though, I think a planetary landing would be a one-time only thing. The saucer probably would be unable to return to space unless it landed on a planet with low-gravity...