Saucer separation. How does it work exactly?

[Christopher]

My take on the Galaxy class ability to separate...

It is a large, heavily armed ship. Following the high number of Constitution Class ships we see lost or destroyed (4 in season 2 alone and 1 on season 3) and with the Galaxy class carrying families, I think the intention is that the star drive would fight while the saucer escaped. It is not that the ship can't stay together and fight or even separate and fight, it is to save most of the people in a do or die situation.

When you send a Galaxy class ship to war, you would not have it full of civilians so there would be no need to separate the saucer for battle. And have we forgotten the TNG episode where they separated the saucer to have an extra ship for combat? Still full of civilians I might add. So while we know that the reason we don't see saucer-less Galaxy class ships in battle is that the 6 foot model was retired in favor of the 4 foot model, there are other things to consider than just the normal crew and passenger compliment of the class. We see a glimpse of this in Yesterday's Enterprise. So just because the Enterprise D has lots of civilians does not mean every Galaxy class we see is the same, especially when they are being sent into battle. But the lack of warp drive makes the separated saucer a bit of a liability in a space battle, though it could easily serve as an armed rear guard.

Those are good points. I suppose those are plausible arguments in-universe.

Still, I remain disappointed that Probert and the season 1 creators went to all that trouble to design and build a separable ship and it just got abandoned after a handful of uses. It seems sad to put so much effort into an idea and let it fall by the wayside. Especially in cases where it would have made more sense to separate the saucer, like with the Odyssey in "The Jem'Hadar." Leaving the saucer behind someplace safe before the stardrive went into danger was exactly the way it was supposed to work. Why waste time evacuating the saucer to the station, and burden the station with the need to quarter all those civilians, when you could just pop the latches and leave the saucer docked to the station?

 

[yotsuya]

Those are good points. I suppose those are plausible arguments in-universe.

Still, I remain disappointed that Probert and the season 1 creators went to all that trouble to design and build a separable ship and it just got abandoned after a handful of uses. It seems sad to put so much effort into an idea and let it fall by the wayside. Especially in cases where it would have made more sense to separate the saucer, like with the Odyssey in "The Jem'Hadar." Leaving the saucer behind someplace safe before the stardrive went into danger was exactly the way it was supposed to work. Why waste time evacuating the saucer to the station, and burden the station with the need to quarter all those civilians, when you could just pop the latches and leave the saucer docked to the station?

True, and its phasers would have added extra protection for the station as well. Sounds like it would have been a good episode to break out the 6 footer.

 

[Christopher]

Sounds like it would have been a good episode to break out the 6 footer.

Or they could've just built the 4-footer with a separable saucer. I never quite understood why they didn't.

 

[darrenjl]

Those are good points. I suppose those are plausible arguments in-universe.

Still, I remain disappointed that Probert and the season 1 creators went to all that trouble to design and build a separable ship and it just got abandoned after a handful of uses. It seems sad to put so much effort into an idea and let it fall by the wayside. Especially in cases where it would have made more sense to separate the saucer, like with the Odyssey in "The Jem'Hadar." Leaving the saucer behind someplace safe before the stardrive went into danger was exactly the way it was supposed to work. Why waste time evacuating the saucer to the station, and burden the station with the need to quarter all those civilians, when you could just pop the latches and leave the saucer docked to the station?

I'd say it was more a show of strength sending a full Galaxy-class starship into the Gamma Quadrant than a true 'prepare for battle' scenario. At that point Starfleet felt a diplomatic solution could be found to the Jem'Hadar threat and Captain Keogh seemed like the kind of guy who'd shy away from sending only half his ship on a mission...

 

[Tomalak]

I assume the in-universe reason matches the real world one - it seemed like a good idea in development, but then it was realised that it had relatively little practical application.

Routinely separating the saucer rarely made it ‘safer’ as it was a sitting duck without the stardrive section. It also took up time in battle situations, made it difficult to escape quickly, and may have made the ship less effective in combat anyway - by removing the main phaser banks and the saucer impulse reactors, which Riker seemed to think would be pretty useful in BoBW.

I would have liked to have had a line about evacuating the civilians from the Enterprise in BoBW. I have to assume this happened off-screen before they even arrived at Jouret IV.

Or they could've just built the 4-footer with a separable saucer. I never quite understood why they didn't.

I would guess because the writers knew they would rarely use that functionality, and it would make the model more expensive and complicated to build and use, which would have negated the point of building the smaller model anyway.

 

[Christopher]

I'd say it was more a show of strength sending a full Galaxy-class starship into the Gamma Quadrant than a true 'prepare for battle' scenario. At that point Starfleet felt a diplomatic solution could be found to the Jem'Hadar threat and Captain Keogh seemed like the kind of guy who'd shy away from sending only half his ship on a mission...

But the idea was supposed to be the opposite of that -- separating the saucer shows that you mean business, because you're freeing the stripped-down battleship to operate without being hampered by the dead weight of the non-combat section. It's like drawing your sword from its sheath. It makes the ship more intimidating, not less.

At least, that's how it was intended to work. But the show gave up on the idea so quickly and got so much into the habit of showing the saucer attached during battle that we came to think of the battle section alone as "half a ship" rather than a whole battleship undocked from the massive research platform it usually carried around.

I assume the in-universe reason matches the real world one - it seemed like a good idea in development, but then it was realised that it had relatively little practical application.

Routinely separating the saucer rarely made it ‘safer’ as it was a sitting duck without the stardrive section.

People keep saying that, but it doesn't make sense. The "sitting duck" situation people imagine is one that was never actually shown in TNG. The first time, in "Encounter at Farpoint," the saucer was left behind during a high-warp chase while the enemy pursued the battle section, so the saucer was instantly left far behind the battle and out of danger. And in "The Arsenal of Freedom," the ship left the danger zone, separated the saucer someplace safe, and then took the battle section back into danger. That's how it was supposed to work. The "sitting duck" objection is a straw man. The only time we ever saw the separated saucer actually in the combat zone was in BOBW, where they did it on purpose to have a two-pronged attack, which was not at all what separation was meant to be used for.

As I keep saying, the situation in "The Jem'Hadar" was exactly the kind of situation that saucer separation was meant for -- the ship is at a safe port and leaving its non-combatants behind before it proceeds into a known hazard situation. In TNG, they could easily have done the same thing. Say, if it's an episode where the ship has been ordered to investigate Romulan attacks along the border, you open it with a scene of the saucer being left behind at the nearest starbase before the stardrive section proceeds on the military mission. And then you could have a B-plot with the characters on the saucer while the A-plot confrontation with the Romulans occurs elsewhere.

It also took up time in battle situations, made it difficult to escape quickly, and may have made the ship less effective in combat anyway - by removing the main phaser banks and the saucer impulse reactors, which Riker seemed to think would be pretty useful in BoBW.

As I've said before, that's a retcon that precisely reverses the original intent of the show's creators. The stardrive section was meant to be specifically designed for combat, while the saucer was the non-combat portion of the ship with only defensive capability. It makes no sense to assume that the designers would have collectively been so incompetent that they failed to realize over 22 years of design and testing (per the TNG Tech Manual) that the ship didn't work the way they meant it to.

After all, the saucer is huge. It's like hooking a heavy trailer to the back of a race car -- it inhibits the car's performance rather than enhancing it. The saucer demands a lot of power from the main engines, and freeing up that power for maneuvering and combat should offset any loss from the saucer's reactors. And the "cobra hood" has its own phaser banks to take the place of the saucer's. The strips are shorter, sure, but the idea is that the entire phaser strip gets its power from a single source, so adding more length doesn't add more power, just more directions to point in. The reason the saucer needs so much length of phaser strips is because it's so damn huge and needs the coverage. The battle section is a smaller target, so its smaller phaser strips provide proportional coverage, and the total power it can bring to bear should be on a par with what the complete ship could deliver, because it was specifically designed to work that way.

I would guess because the writers knew they would rarely use that functionality, and it would make the model more expensive and complicated to build and use, which would have negated the point of building the smaller model anyway.

That doesn't follow. The problem with the 6-footer wasn't its separation ability, it was its unwieldy size and lack of surface detail. As Dan Curry explained:

"We had the six-footer and we also had the two-footer, and something that must have intellectually interesting to Andy was the idea of this perfectly smooth ship that was absolutely huge, and if you saw it in person the scale would be rapidly apparent. But when we photographed the big ship very smooth, we couldn't tell the difference between it and a very small ship very smooth, because photographically, particularly on television and in order to create that sense of scale and hugeness, we needed three-dimensional relief, something to cast shadows. That's why we built the four-footer. And also because the six-footer was really too big to be manageable, particularly when we shot matte passes, where you have enough lit [card] behind the ship to obtain a silhouette. (...) So if you had a big move going around it, it would sometimes take a day to get the matte pass because the ship was so huge. And the four-footer turned out to be a more manageable size." (Star Trek: The Next Generation USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D Blueprints,booklet, p. 9)

Ronald B. Moore added that it was hard to take the saucer off, but that was also due to its size and weight. It should've been easier with a smaller, lighter model; plus, they could've learned from their experience with the first model and designed a better separation system if necessary.

Or they could've just built two more models of the separated saucer and stardrive section, and used stock ILM footage to show the separation when necessary. Sure, it would've cost more, but it would've been a one-time expenditure that would've given them more options and flexibility going forward -- if the producers hadn't already lost interest in saucer separation well before the 4-footer was commissioned.

 

[Tomalak]

But we know exactly why the separation wasn't used more often - it took up time in a 45 minute story to separate the ship and move the characters to another location, and meant they had to pay to rebuild the battle bridge or keep it as a standing set. The writers had no interest in doing it, so it never happened in the way it was originally envisaged after the first season.

With that in mind, what I'm interested in exploring is why this would also be the case in-universe. I've offered a couple of suggestions based on what we've seen on screen. If Keogh didn't see fit to leave his saucer behind, why not? If the Enterprise-D rarely used this gambit, when there are plenty of examples where it may have made sense, why not? Why do we never see another Galaxy in combat without her saucer?

To me this suggests that there were very few scenarios in which the benefits of splitting the ship outweighed the disadvantages, therefore the original design intent probably proved to be of less use in the field. There are plenty of real-world examples of this kind of thing.

In-universe, we see a trend to single-hulled ships after the Galaxy (Intrepid, Sovereign for instance). The next time we see starship separation it's on the Prometheus where it's deliberately used as an attacking move. To me this suggests Starfleet designers went back and rethought their approach using practical data from the experiences of Galaxy-class ships in service.

 

[Christopher]

But we know exactly why the separation wasn't used more often - it took up time in a 45 minute story to separate the ship and move the characters to another location, and meant they had to pay to rebuild the battle bridge or keep it as a standing set.

The battle bridge was a standing set. It was a redress of the movie bridge set, which was used frequently over the course of TNG to represent other starship bridges (e.g. the Stargazer), Data's cybernetics lab, etc.

And it didn't have to take up time every time it was used. Once it had been established for the audience, they wouldn't need it explained to them. It's like the transporter. The first few times the transporter was used, they had to show us a scene in the transporter room and show the party getting on the platforms and the operator working the controls. But later on, once the audience was familiar with the idea, you could just open an episode with a shot of the landing party materializing on the surface, because how they got there could be taken as read. By the same token, once separation had been established as a familiar thing, you could just open an episode with the stardrive section already separated and en route to the crisis. "Captain's Log, Stardate 4whatever. We have left the saucer at Starbase 47 upon receiving orders to investigate Romulan activity along the border." Simple as that.

The writers had no interest in doing it, so it never happened in the way it was originally envisaged after the first season.

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. The reason it was abandoned wasn't about internal story logic, it was about the revolving-door writing room of season 1 and the original developers of TNG being completely replaced (except for Roddenberry, who was marginalized to essentially a consultant role by season 2 and after), with their successors just not being interested in developing the concepts the creators had set up. So a lot of those early potentials went to waste, not because they couldn't have worked, but just because the new writers weren't invested in developing them.

With that in mind, what I'm interested in exploring is why this would also be the case in-universe.

People have been doing that for over 30 years, and I've never heard a convincing explanation. Most of the fan theories only work if you're unfamiliar with the specifics of the battle section's design and operation.

To me this suggests that there were very few scenarios in which the benefits of splitting the ship outweighed the disadvantages, therefore the original design intent probably proved to be of less use in the field. There are plenty of real-world examples of this kind of thing.

Like what?

It just seems like a pretty huge design screwup to spend 22 years developing, designing, and testing a ship class intended to have a separable section specialized for combat, and only discover years after the fact that it actually works better in combat when not separated. You'd think the entire design team would've been fired for that. I have a hard time believing that they wouldn't have figured that out before the ships ever went into service. They had simulators and shakedown cruises and all sorts of ways to test it in advance. Are there really any real-world examples of such a humongous mistake being made in a design with that much time and care and expertise put into it? I just don't find that credible.

In-universe, we see a trend to single-hulled ships after the Galaxy (Intrepid, Sovereign for instance). The next time we see starship separation it's on the Prometheus where it's deliberately used as an attacking move. To me this suggests Starfleet designers went back and rethought their approach using practical data from the experiences of Galaxy-class ships in service.

But Galaxy separation was also deliberately designed for combat, just with only one section going into combat instead of three. So I don't see a meaningful difference there.

 

[Damian]

The battle bridge was a standing set. It was a redress of the movie bridge set, which was used frequently over the course of TNG to represent other starship bridges (e.g. the Stargazer), Data's cybernetics lab, etc.

And it didn't have to take up time every time it was used. Once it had been established for the audience, they wouldn't need it explained to them. It's like the transporter. The first few times the transporter was used, they had to show us a scene in the transporter room and show the party getting on the platforms and the operator working the controls. But later on, once the audience was familiar with the idea, you could just open an episode with a shot of the landing party materializing on the surface, because how they got there could be taken as read. By the same token, once separation had been established as a familiar thing, you could just open an episode with the stardrive section already separated and en route to the crisis. "Captain's Log, Stardate 4whatever. We have left the saucer at Starbase 47 upon receiving orders to investigate Romulan activity along the border." Simple as that.




Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. The reason it was abandoned wasn't about internal story logic, it was about the revolving-door writing room of season 1 and the original developers of TNG being completely replaced (except for Roddenberry, who was marginalized to essentially a consultant role by season 2 and after), with their successors just not being interested in developing the concepts the creators had set up. So a lot of those early potentials went to waste, not because they couldn't have worked, but just because the new writers weren't invested in developing them.




People have been doing that for over 30 years, and I've never heard a convincing explanation. Most of the fan theories only work if you're unfamiliar with the specifics of the battle section's design and operation.




Like what?

It just seems like a pretty huge design screwup to spend 22 years developing, designing, and testing a ship class intended to have a separable section specialized for combat, and only discover years after the fact that it actually works better in combat when not separated. You'd think the entire design team would've been fired for that. I have a hard time believing that they wouldn't have figured that out before the ships ever went into service. They had simulators and shakedown cruises and all sorts of ways to test it in advance. Are there really any real-world examples of such a humongous mistake being made in a design with that much time and care and expertise put into it? I just don't find that credible.




But Galaxy separation was also deliberately designed for combat, just with only one section going into combat instead of three. So I don't see a meaningful difference there.

I thought I heard somewhere that they didn't like to separate the ship unless absolutely necessary because of something to do with the impulse engines? Maybe I'm wrong about that but something about that comes to mind, since the impulse reactors are in the saucer I believe.

I imagine in-story it'd make more sense to do separations more than they did. Though I suppose there are times you end up in a battle without much warning and simply don't have time to get the saucer to safe haven (in which case it's safer to keep it attached so it's protected by the more powerful shields the warp engines form the drive section afford you).

As to why Keogh didn't separate the Odyssey? I figured maybe he felt the ship would have a better chance fighting the Jem-Hadar with an intact ship, and since he had time to offload his civilians he did that and kept the ship intact (again, maybe it had something to do with the impulse engines). Maybe part of it was ego. Of course, the real world reason makes sense, as you noted, they used a different model. But there are probably ways you can offer up an in-world explanation that at least might make sense from a narrative standpoint.

 

[Tomalak]

People have been doing that for over 30 years, and I've never heard a convincing explanation. Most of the fan theories only work if you're unfamiliar with the specifics of the battle section's design and operation.

Come on, you’re a writer. You know that the intent of the original designer or author only lasts until it ends up on screen. The reason I enjoy this section is to spitball the inconsistencies we see in Star Trek and see if we can find plausible explanations.

You’ve mentioned that separating the saucer makes the battle section a more potent weapon. This isn’t supported on screen, where the justification in both EaF and AoF is the safety of civilians and non-essential personnel. The only example I can think of is Worf bragging in Heart of Glory, which I think can be taken with a pinch of salt. Again I’m only interested in justifying and explaining what we see on screen. Happy to be corrected if I’ve missed something.

In BoBW Riker is of the view that separation will make the ship less potent a weapon. No other Galaxy-class captain separates their ship in combat. The only conclusion I can draw is that contrary to the expectation of the designers, separation had drawbacks that most captains chose not to accept.

It just seems like a pretty huge design screwup to spend 22 years developing, designing, and testing a ship class intended to have a separable section specialized for combat, and only discover years after the fact that it actually works better in combat when not separated. You'd think the entire design team would've been fired for that. I have a hard time believing that they wouldn't have figured that out before the ships ever went into service. They had simulators and shakedown cruises and all sorts of ways to test it in advance. Are there really any real-world examples of such a humongous mistake being made in a design with that much time and care and expertise put into it? I just don't find that credible.

It’s not a screw-up, it works entirely as intended. What I’m positing is that experience of practical situations showed that it was less useful than expected. That’s not something that can be simulated.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that separation is something that the Enterprise-D only does twice in her first year, then once more as a tactical gambit, before it is finally used at the end for the original intention devised in TOS - as a lifeboat for the crew. Again it works perfectly, there are no casualties. No screw-ups here.

A couple of real-world examples that occur (with the caveat that I know about as much as the average Star Trek writer) - Concorde was developed over many years, but the finished product was not economical and served no practical use as ticket prices were too expensive for all but the richest consumers. The technology wasn’t developed after this, aside from the Soviet equivalent that was retired for similar reasons.

VTOL is another example of a somewhat dead end - originally intended to operate in a landscape ravaged by nuclear attack, the Harrier’s vertical takeoff turned out to be of limited application as it reduced the payload. The technology worked exactly as intended, it’s just that more often a short takeoff was preferred for this reason. Now aviation has moved on to short takeoff/vertical landing rather than trying to make vertical takeoffs more efficient.

But Galaxy separation was also deliberately designed for combat, just with only one section going into combat instead of three. So I don't see a meaningful difference there.

I think there’s a difference in a lifeboat to safeguard lives versus a combat ship that breaks into three separate warships. The methodology behind multi-vector assault mode is different to the Galaxy’s preservation of life. YMMV.

Although perhaps the Prometheus stems from Shelby’s unconventional use of saucer separation against the Borg, where instead of using the saucer as a lifeboat, she intended it to provide another target.

 

[Markonian]

The 2370-set novel "Rogue Saucer" by John Vornholt depicts the fairly quick (saucer evacuation is under 5 minutes) and easy swapping of the saucer (including its new gel packs) from the Galaxy-class USS Bolivar with the saucer of the Enterprise-D. Section 2.7 of the Technical Manual refers to 18 active latches from the Battle Section and quick-disconnect umbilicals for all those things the two sections normally like to share like gas, liquid, plasma, turbolift cars, data channels, and chocolate pudding. Many do not consider novels and technical manuals as canon. They are still fun!

I need to give this novel a read.

In the equally non-canon Star Trek: Armada II game, saucer separation was the “special weapon” of the Galaxy class. However, it was awkward if the battle turned against you because the saucer lacked a warp drive and became a sitting duck.

Unlike Christopher’s sensible explanation on how the saucer “outranks” the drive section, combining the two sections of different Galaxy-class ships would mean the combined vessel takes the name of the star drive section.

I’d love to see an occasion where a Galaxy and Nebula swap saucers. Probably in the STO timeframe, where starship modularity is a key priority.

 

[darrenjl]

Perhaps, somewhere out in the Star Trek universe that will never be mentioned on screen, a Galaxy class did separate prior to battle and the enemy simply warped over to the saucer section and destroyed it, and Starfleet vowed never again to let civilians live on starships.

 

[Christopher]

I thought I heard somewhere that they didn't like to separate the ship unless absolutely necessary because of something to do with the impulse engines? Maybe I'm wrong about that but something about that comes to mind, since the impulse reactors are in the saucer I believe.

Again, I'm skeptical of any explanation that relies on the ship not working well when separated when it was specifically designed for that purpose.

I imagine in-story it'd make more sense to do separations more than they did. Though I suppose there are times you end up in a battle without much warning and simply don't have time to get the saucer to safe haven (in which case it's safer to keep it attached so it's protected by the more powerful shields the warp engines form the drive section afford you).

Sure, in those situations it makes sense to keep the ship together. But it doesn't make sense in situations where they know in advance that they're going into danger, as was often the case in TNG and routinely the case with the Galaxy armadas in the Dominion War.

Think of it like, say, a bodyguard escorting a diplomat. If someone starts attacking the diplomat, then naturally the bodyguard stays by their side to defend them. But if the bodyguard gets a tip that an assassin is in such-and-such a hotel, then they'll leave the diplomat behind somewhere safe before going to arrest the assassin. It should be different depending on whether the danger comes to you or you go to it.

As to why Keogh didn't separate the Odyssey? I figured maybe he felt the ship would have a better chance fighting the Jem-Hadar with an intact ship, and since he had time to offload his civilians he did that and kept the ship intact (again, maybe it had something to do with the impulse engines).

I already answered that. The intent of the designers was that the battle section would be a faster, sleeker, more maneuverable and powerful battleship without the saucer's bulk slowing it down and hogging a lot of its power for non-combat purposes. That was literally the entire point of designing a separable battle section in the first place.

Come on, you’re a writer. You know that the intent of the original designer or author only lasts until it ends up on screen. The reason I enjoy this section is to spitball the inconsistencies we see in Star Trek and see if we can find plausible explanations.

I have literally made a career out of coming up with explanations for Trek's inconsistencies. That's why this one frustrates me so much -- because in over three decades I have never heard or concocted an explanation that made sense. The excuses I've heard are all unconvincing handwaves that rely on the contradictory premise that the ship doesn't work the way it was designed to work.

You’ve mentioned that separating the saucer makes the battle section a more potent weapon. This isn’t supported on screen, where the justification in both EaF and AoF is the safety of civilians and non-essential personnel.

But those are part and parcel of the same thing. The reason the ship could separate in the first place was so that the stardrive section could fight while the civilians and non-combatant crew were left behind safely in the saucer. That means the ship's combat capability was meant to be concentrated only in the stardrive section.

Besides, it's just common sense. An unhitched horse is going to be able to run faster and use energy more efficiently than one dragging a carriage. An unencumbered martial artist is going to be more effective than one wearing a heavy backpack.

I've always thought of the Galaxy class as sort of like a battleship carrying a space station on its head. The saucer is payload. In spacecraft, lighter is always better. (Which is why I'm not a fan of modern Trek's addiction to making starships ever more ridiculously huge, but that's another conversation.)

It’s not a screw-up, it works entirely as intended. What I’m positing is that experience of practical situations showed that it was less useful than expected. That’s not something that can be simulated.

Starships are put through extensive shakedowns and testing before they're actually put into service. I don't find it plausible that they'd be surprised by this after the fact.

A couple of real-world examples that occur (with the caveat that I know about as much as the average Star Trek writer) - Concorde was developed over many years, but the finished product was not economical and served no practical use as ticket prices were too expensive for all but the richest consumers. The technology wasn’t developed after this, aside from the Soviet equivalent that was retired for similar reasons.

It seems that had more to do with public perception and lack of confidence in the technology than any actual engineering flaws.

I think there’s a difference in a lifeboat to safeguard lives versus a combat ship that breaks into three separate warships. The methodology behind multi-vector assault mode is different to the Galaxy’s preservation of life. YMMV.

You're focusing on the wrong half of the ship. I'm saying that the stardrive section was specifically designed to be able to operate as a completely autonomous battleship, so it makes no sense to say it works better as a battleship when lugging around the part that was designed not to go into battle.

 

[Damian]

Again, I'm skeptical of any explanation that relies on the ship not working well when separated when it was specifically designed for that purpose.

I just remembered it was "The Best of Both Worlds" where I recall hearing about the impulse engines. Riker is reluctant to separate the ship because he felt they might need power from the impulse engines to fight the Borg.

Of course they did do just that, and in a bit of irony I guess, they do it so both sections can fight the Borg. Not exactly what the designers had in mind I guess . But then they had a specific plan with that and times were desperate so

as was often the case in TNG and routinely the case with the Galaxy armadas in the Dominion War.

My guess is in universe maybe once war broke out they stopped carrying families on Galaxy-class ships. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to carry families on ships during a war anyway. If the ships were repurposed for wartime then I'd guess they decided to keep the ships intact (after all, it probably wouldn't make sense to have every Galaxy-class ship separate to go into every battle--that would get cumbersome) and with the size of the ships they probably could carry a lot of troops for battle, so you might not want to separate the ship in that case.

In any event, I guess I was always under the impression that saucer separation was only done under emergencies. I mean, perhaps I'm reading more into it than what was intended, but I just thought it was something down the list of things to do. If all else fails we separate the ship sort of thing. After all, originally the Galaxy-class ship was designed more for exploration, not battles. The other side of the coin to consider is once you separate the saucer section becomes vulnerable. It doesn't have warp power so that would limit its ability to retreat should it's safe haven become hazardous for some reason, and that in turn affects how much power it has for the shields. And it only has phaser power as an offensive weapon. So I can see some downsides as well. I could see captains weighing all that when deciding whether to separate. Is the saucer section better off being left behind, hopefully somewhere that is safe? Or is it better off with the protection the extra power of the stardrive affords it? I can imagine scenarios where either might apply. Though I agree with your point that if they were knowingly going into a battle situation and they were able to leave the saucer in a well protected sector with little risk of it too coming under attack, then separation might be the better option. But in an unexplored sector, or an area that doesn't afford the saucer adequate protection, then I can see a captain deciding they are better off keeping the ship intact and hopefully if worse comes to worse they can escape with warp power.

 

[Christopher]

I just remembered it was "The Best of Both Worlds" where I recall hearing about the impulse engines. Riker is reluctant to separate the ship because he felt they might need power from the impulse engines to fight the Borg.

Which, as I've already pointed out multiple times, requires ignoring the whole design philosophy behind the ship in the first place. The battle section was specifically designed to be more capable in battle without the saucer, because it's freed of the power drain of the saucer's systems and life support and has greater speed and maneuverability without the humongous mass of the saucer weighing it down. As I keep saying, why would they design the stardrive section specifically to be good at combat when separated and then have it not be good at combat when separated?

Of course they did do just that, and in a bit of irony I guess, they do it so both sections can fight the Borg. Not exactly what the designers had in mind I guess . But then they had a specific plan with that and times were desperate so

I suppose this is the only thing that makes sense of it -- the fact that the ship actually was separated. That way, the battle section is freed to work the way it's supposed to, and the saucer power that would normally be used to protect the crew is now used as an extra aid in combat, in a situation where every little bit helps. So it doesn't contradict the design philosophy in that specific instance. But it doesn't account for all the times they took the ship into battle without separating.

My guess is in universe maybe once war broke out they stopped carrying families on Galaxy-class ships. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to carry families on ships during a war anyway. If the ships were repurposed for wartime then I'd guess they decided to keep the ships intact (after all, it probably wouldn't make sense to have every Galaxy-class ship separate to go into every battle--that would get cumbersome) and with the size of the ships they probably could carry a lot of troops for battle, so you might not want to separate the ship in that case.

But presumably a lot of those G-class ships were specially built for the war, since there were a lot more of them than we ever saw before. So why not just build battle sections without the saucers? Or build smaller, sleeker saucers that aren't such a huge dead weight to lug around? Surely that would be faster and more efficient.

In any event, I guess I was always under the impression that saucer separation was only done under emergencies. I mean, perhaps I'm reading more into it than what was intended, but I just thought it was something down the list of things to do. If all else fails we separate the ship sort of thing. After all, originally the Galaxy-class ship was designed more for exploration, not battles.

Well, yes and no. In TOS, saucer separation was a last-ditch, irreversible emergency move, but the G-class was specifically designed so that it could be done repeatedly. It was only meant for crisis situations that would hopefully be uncommon, but it was understood that a starship would find itself in danger sometimes and the scientists and civilians would need defending. And it's because the ship as a whole was designed primarily for peaceful uses that you needed to split off the smaller portion of it to become a combat vessel.

I could see captains weighing all that when deciding whether to separate. Is the saucer section better off being left behind, hopefully somewhere that is safe? Or is it better off with the protection the extra power of the stardrive affords it? I can imagine scenarios where either might apply. Though I agree with your point that if they were knowingly going into a battle situation and they were able to leave the saucer in a well protected sector with little risk of it too coming under attack, then separation might be the better option. But in an unexplored sector, or an area that doesn't afford the saucer adequate protection, then I can see a captain deciding they are better off keeping the ship intact and hopefully if worse comes to worse they can escape with warp power.

Yes, but that's exactly it. Both situations should occur. There should be some cases where it makes more sense to separate and other cases where it makes more sense not to. That's the whole point of designing the ship to work in both modes. I'm not saying it should always separate; I'm saying it didn't make sense that it never separated after season 1, BOBW excepted. I'm saying there were many cases where separation would have been logical and it wasn't done.

 

[Tomalak]

But presumably a lot of those G-class ships were specially built for the war, since there were a lot more of them than we ever saw before. So why not just build battle sections without the saucers? Or build smaller, sleeker saucers that aren't such a huge dead weight to lug around? Surely that would be faster and more efficient.

Yep, you can ask the same question of the alternate reality in Yesterday's Enterprise.

There must, therefore, be advantages in keeping the saucer after all which outweighed the benefits of removing it. In YE, Year specifically calls out the troop carrying capacity. One could imagine their capacity to carry other supplies, weapons, spare parts, shuttlecraft etc could all be useful in wartime, not to mention their vast medical facilities. They'd be ideal for picking up survivors from evacuated ships and installations. Indeed this is exactly what the alternate Enterprise does in YE.

(Though I think the presumption on when they were built is on somewhat shaky ground. We never see that many Galaxies in one place before, but equally we never see that many Excelsiors or Mirandas or Akiras in one place prior to the Dominion War. It doesn't mean they weren't out there, or steadily under construction during the TNG era [c.f. Utopia Planitia in VOY: Relativity].)

Interestingly there is a trend towards smaller ships afterwards - there's never anything as large as the Galaxy again. The Sovereign was much smaller and seems to lack separation capability.

So maybe the Galaxy really did turn out to be a lemon? Or perhaps not a total lemon, as there are plenty of these ships in service until late in the 24th century at least, but it may well have been a design that made sense in the 2340s, but was overtaken by events. Subsequent Starship development took a different turn.

I suspect you may disagree.

 

[Damian]

But presumably a lot of those G-class ships were specially built for the war, since there were a lot more of them than we ever saw before. So why not just build battle sections without the saucers? Or build smaller, sleeker saucers that aren't such a huge dead weight to lug around? Surely that would be faster and more efficient.

I just sort of figured they were ships that were already out there that were 'retrofitted' to be battleships after the war began. We know from DS9 that Starfleet was hurting for ships so I just figured they pulled the existing Galaxy class ships into the war and just had to use them as they were built. They could probably be retrofitted to make the whole ship combat ready but probably couldn't redesign the ship to be sleaker. And I'm guessing while having the ship separated temporarily could work, for something long term like a war I'd imagine that probably wouldn't be a feasible option (such as leaving the ship apart for long periods, you'd still need things that are probably only located in the saucer like crew quarters and such, and as I noted, separating the ship every time they headed into battle during a war would probably just get too cumbersome).

Yes, but that's exactly it. Both situations should occur. There should be some cases where it makes more sense to separate and other cases where it makes more sense not to. That's the whole point of designing the ship to work in both modes. I'm not saying it should always separate; I'm saying it didn't make sense that it never separated after season 1, BOBW excepted. I'm saying there were many cases where separation would have been logical and it wasn't done.

Yeah, well I can't disagree with you there. It probably should have occurred more often than it did. After the first season it happened just twice, in BOBW then in Generations. We could probably find a few instances during TNG's run where they should have separated the ship. Obviously TNG was during a more peaceful time so it might not necessarily even happen every season, but here and there, sure.

And yeah, the Odyssey probably should have left it's saucer section behind in "The Jem'Hadar." I sometimes wondered about that myself. Why did they take the entire ship to the Gamma Quadrant. In story the only things I can think of is that they greatly underestimated the power of Jem'Hadar warships and just felt a Galaxy class ship wasn't at serious risk of actually being destroyed, or that Captain Keogh's ego got in the way (though one would wonder how he got command of one of Starfleet's top of the line ships in that case).

Still, from a dramatic point of view the scene worked. Seeing a ship that looked like the Enterprise being destroyed in such a fashion did indicate just how powerful and dangerous the Dominion was (which I read was why they producers decided to use a Galaxy class ship in the first place--letting us know that the Dominion was powerful enough to destroy even the Enterprise). And seeing the Jem'Hadar destroy an 'entire' Enterprise style ship did make an impact, probably more than just destroying the drive section would have.

 

[Damian]

Yep, you can ask the same question of the alternate reality in Yesterday's Enterprise

Is it possible that in the alternate reality the ship wasn't designed to separate? I mean, it's possible it wasn't designed for that there. In that reality the ships were designed for combat so the thought processes might be totally different in that ship's design.

 

[Timo]

Anything is possible unless otherwise explicated in the actual show. Including the impossible, this being scifi.

Which means that we have conflicting data on the nature of saucer separation: in "Farpoint" and "Arsenal", it appears to be a brilliant innovation of our heroes to utilize the saucer for evacuating noncombatants (there being no known operational precedent, and some of the officers even oppose the procedure), whereas in "Heart of Glory", it seems the stardrive hull is intended to fight better without the saucer (again there being no real precedent, as the stardrive in "Farpoint" didn't fight, so Worf is just quoting designer specs).

If the saucer wasn't designed for just-in-case evacuation, this still doesn't mean the stardrive wasn't designed to fight better without the saucer. Shedding the bulk might still be a valid concept in theory, preferably done long before the ship even raises anchor for a combat mission, and being unrelated to evacuation. But post-"Heart" events, such as the subsequent "Arsenal", might reveal that there is no real combat advantage to separation.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Christopher]

Yep, you can ask the same question of the alternate reality in Yesterday's Enterprise.

And I literally have, more than once.

Interestingly there is a trend towards smaller ships afterwards - there's never anything as large as the Galaxy again. The Sovereign was much smaller and seems to lack separation capability.

No, the Sov's about the same size. It's significantly longer and somewhat flatter.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/ndeuf.jpg

And it was designed with separation capability:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3b/87/53/3b8753b11df8b2fac5f2b175295875ab.jpg

I just sort of figured they were ships that were already out there that were 'retrofitted' to be battleships after the war began.

It was implied in TNG that the Galaxy class was fairly new and there were only a few of them in service. There were dozens, if not hundreds, in the war.

And I'm guessing while having the ship separated temporarily could work, for something long term like a war I'd imagine that probably wouldn't be a feasible option (such as leaving the ship apart for long periods, you'd still need things that are probably only located in the saucer like crew quarters and such, and as I noted, separating the ship every time they headed into battle during a war would probably just get too cumbersome).

There are crew quarters in the stardrive section, enough for the smaller crew it would need. And all major saucer functions like bridge, computer core, sickbay, etc. are duplicated in the stardrive section. The bulk of the saucer is for stuff not needed in combat, like science labs, crew amenities, holodecks, etc.

Basically, the saucer is a cross between a cruise ship and a university village, and the stardrive section wears it like one of Guinan's hats.

Still, from a dramatic point of view the scene worked. Seeing a ship that looked like the Enterprise being destroyed in such a fashion did indicate just how powerful and dangerous the Dominion was (which I read was why they producers decided to use a Galaxy class ship in the first place--letting us know that the Dominion was powerful enough to destroy even the Enterprise). And seeing the Jem'Hadar destroy an 'entire' Enterprise style ship did make an impact, probably more than just destroying the drive section would have.

Yes, but that perception only exists because we so rarely saw the ship separated in TNG. The only reason it seems abnormal to us is because the show made it abnormal. The original intention was that it would be used often enough that we'd get used to seeing it when the ship went into action, that we'd automatically associate a separated stardrive section with stuff getting dangerous. In that alternate reality, it would seem strange to us to see an intact Galaxy going into battle, as strange as someone going into a swordfight without unsheathing the sword.

Is it possible that in the alternate reality the ship wasn't designed to separate? I mean, it's possible it wasn't designed for that there. In that reality the ships were designed for combat so the thought processes might be totally different in that ship's design.

But that's exactly the problem. If the YE Enterprise had been designed for combat, it should've had a very different appearance than the Prime version which was designed as a scientific luxury liner. I understood the budgetary reasons for using the same miniature, but in-universe, it was never plausible to me. If it had been designed for combat, it would probably be a lot sleeker and more compact, have fewer windows, etc. And I doubt it would've had a wastefully large recreational space like Ten Forward.

At the very least, it would've been an effective and affordable way to immediately get across the difference between timelines if they'd used the separated stardrive section and had the crew in the battle bridge. Granted, the 6-footer was harder to shoot, but presumably the stardrive hull alone would've been lighter and less cumbersome than the intact ship. But then I'm not sure what set they would've used as an alternative for Ten Forward for Guinan's scenes. Cargo bay redress?