Shoulda separated the saucer?

[Captrek]

There are times when it seems they should separate the saucer, but don’t. A few examples I’ve noticed lately.


11001001

Maybe just no time to separate during this crisis. The stardrive is being sent away to go kerblooey, why is the saucer going with it?


The Neutral Zone

You’re heading to the Neutral Zone to investigate the destruction of outposts and possibly confront Romulan warships. It’s a very dangerous mission. Why are you bringing civvies into it? Leave the saucer behind.


The Child

PICARD: Picard.
PULASKI [OC]: I just wanted you to know what risks we're about to take.
PICARD: Go on.
PULASKI: If the most innocuous specimen on the manifest list gets loose, it will destroy all life on the Enterprise in a matter of hours.
PICARD: I understand, Doctor. Do you have a recommendation?
PULASKI: Considering how desperately this is needed, no, I don't. I just wanted you to know what we were carrying.
PICARD: Thank you.

Here’s a recommendation: take the stardrive with only the people needed for the mission, and leave everyone else behind.


The Enemy

This is a big one, because it’s consequential.

Tomalak says, you have our man and he’s dying. You don’t have the means to save him and we do. Deliver him before he dies in your custody.

Picard refuses because he won’t abandon the search for Geordi and the investigation into the Romulan presence.

He has two ships. The stardrive can deliver the dying Romulan and deal with any potential hostilities while the saucer stays behind to search for Geordi and any remaining Romulan agents. Instead, Picard lets the man die.



What do you think of these examples? How about some others?

 

[C.E. Evans]

Just my opinion, but I think the ship is weaker without the saucer section and separating it should always be an option of last resort. I believe every civilian and crewmember with children knows and accepts the risks of being aboard a Starfleet vessel. You hope for the best, but are ready for the worst.

I think the Enterprise-D was extremely lucky whenever she separated her saucer section and was able to reconnect with her stardrive later. Other ships--like the USS Syracuse--might not have been so fortunate.

 

[Cicero]

I'm curious about what would have happened in "Cause and Effect" if they'd separated the stardrive and saucer sections when they realized they were stuck in a time loop. How widespread was the effect?

 

[Captrek]

Just my opinion, but I think the ship is weaker without the saucer section and separating it should always be an option of last resort. I believe every civilian and crewmember with children knows and accepts the risks of being aboard a Starfleet vessel. You hope for the best, but are ready for the worst.

The stardrive is described on screen as very capable, and in particular as superior in battle, without the saucer.

I think the idea that the two parts aren’t very capable without each other is fanon adopted to explain why it almost never happened after being introduced as an important capability.

“It’s a Starfleet vessel, they know the risks when they come aboard” isn’t a reason to risk their lives unnecessarily. Some of them are children who did not and meaningfully could not give informed consent to those risks. One of them is a Romulan officer whose preventable death in Starfleet hands should also be a consideration (even though Patakh knew the risks when he went to Golorndon Core).

I think the Enterprise-D was extremely lucky whenever she separated her saucer section and was able to reconnect with her stardrive later. Other ships--like the USS Syracuse--might not have been so fortunate.

The stardrive can separate from the saucer, go deal with a dangerous situation potentially involving battle, and return to the saucer when it’s safe. I think that’s the main point of the capability as presented on screen, and why the detached stardrive is designed to be superior in battle. That’s how it’s used in EAF and TAOF. Then basically never again (its use in BOBW2 is a gimmick), despite situations apparently calling for it similarly or even more so.

The Enemy especially. We’re not leaving? Fine. We’re keeping Patakh here with us knowing we can’t save his life? We can deliver him to life-saving treatment in the stardrive. Why don’t we?

 

[C.E. Evans]

The stardrive is described on screen as very capable, and in particular as superior in battle, without the saucer.

It's also been described as being able to get more power with the saucer section.

“It’s a Starfleet vessel, they know the risks when they come aboard” isn’t a reason to risk their lives unnecessarily.

Who said that? Certainly wasn't me. What I did say, however, was that they know the risks. No captain wants to risk the lives of crewmembers or passengers unnecessarily. But if you sign up to be on a starship, they genuinely have to know the dangers involved, right?

Some of them are children who did not and meaningfully could not give informed consent to those risks.

They're not likely there without permission from their parents. They are the ones that ultimately decide, not Starfleet. I would even argue that there are far more Starfleet personnel with children that don't want them along.

The stardrive can separate from the saucer, go deal with a dangerous situation potentially involving battle, and return to the saucer when it’s safe. I think that’s the main point of the capability as presented on screen, and why the detached stardrive is designed to be superior in battle. That’s how it’s used in EAF and TAOF. Then basically never again (its use in BOBW2 is a gimmick), despite situations apparently calling for it similarly or even more so.

My main point is that saucer separation isn't always feasible or the first go-to option in any dangerous situation. Sometimes, like the aforementioned Syracuse, they might not be able to reconnect later. I think every captain of such ship has to take into account there might not be a later and make the decision based on the odds they have. One could argue that ideally, starships should not have passengers aboard, and that seems to be the case after the Galaxy-class. I think the Galaxy-class ships that participated in DS9's Dominion War all ditched their civilian populations and didn't have to worry about them, reserving saucer separation solely as a means to evacuate the entire crew if the ship became compromised.

 

[somebuddyX]

I don't have an example that happened, but more I think it would have been cool if there had been a battle where the saucer and the stardrive both fought an enemy (and not including the Borg ship). I never finished the novel "Rogue Saucer" but I was hoping something like that would happen there.

 

[AntonyF]

The stardrive is described on screen as very capable, and in particular as superior in battle, without the saucer.

I think the idea that the two parts aren’t very capable without each other is fanon adopted to explain why it almost never happened after being introduced as an important capability.

I've not heard of fanon but I assume it's a portmanteau of fan and canon, and thus a way to diminish an idea. But actually they tried to address it in the show too. RIker directly says for example that the star drive needed the power from the impulse engines of the saucer in one scenario.

Now in reality the producers just didn't like it as a plot device as they said it slowed down the storytelling. There is also the case that the battle bridge was redressed as so many things in the show on a regular basis that they'd have to re-battle bridge it each time which would be a hassle.

So mostly they just hope the viewer forgot. Even though logically there were many times - and the OP has suggested some - where it would have made sense. "The Child" is one that really springs to mind from that list where separation would have made sense.

 

[Shikarnov]

I think this is a great thread, but we have the answer already: they sparingly used saucer separation because it introduces delays in the story -- or eliminates the story entirely (as in the case of delivering the Romulan survivor in The Enemy).

I think the Enterprise-D was extremely lucky whenever she separated her saucer section and was able to reconnect with her stardrive later. Other ships--like the USS Syracuse--might not have been so fortunate.

That's certainly how they rationalize never using this feature.

I think it was Riker who said "we need power from the saucer's impulse engines" or some such in Best of Both Worlds to refute Shelby's recommendation to separate. And I get that; three engines adds redundancy even as the saucer's mass reduces maneuverability. But increased maneuverability means you're less likely to get hit as much or at all...

I'm curious about what would have happened in "Cause and Effect" if they'd separated the stardrive and saucer sections when they realized they were stuck in a time loop. How widespread was the effect?

One wonders whether that would break the time loop entirely. The Bozeman very narrowly missed the Enterprise in the end only because they decompressed the shuttlebay and moved out of the way.... But if there was no saucer, given the angle they were going, the Bozeman might have made it past the stardrive section without any collision at all.

And if that's not the case, would we end up with 1000 Thomas Riker-like duplicates?

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

I think this is a great thread, but we have the answer already: they sparingly used saucer separation because it introduces delays in the story -- or eliminates the story entirely (as in the case of delivering the Romulan survivor in The Enemy).

I could be mistaken, but I believe the OP is aware of the real world explanation. That's not what he was asking. He was wondering which in-universe events would have justified saucer separation, had the producers allowed the plot device to be used.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

I've always been conflicted about the saucer separation. Generally, it makes sense if you have civilians on board. However, I think the star drive looks weird without the saucer.

A bit off topic, but related: When Riker rammed the Enterprise E into the Scimitar in Nemesis, he surely killed any crew in the forward part of the saucer. I suppose there wasn't time to warn and evacuate them, but if that happened in real life it's the type of thing that would haunt you.

 

[Captrek]

I could be mistaken, but I believe the OP is aware of the real world explanation. That's not what he was asking. He was wondering which in-universe events would have justified saucer separation, had the producers allowed the plot device to be used.

You are correct. Perhaps I should have clarified that I intended it as a Watsonian, not Doylist, observation. I’m clarifying it now.

From a Doylist perspective, 11001001 might have been a good time to quickly mention and dismiss it with an in-universe explanation — maybe not enough time, maybe not doable inside stardock.

 

[The Wormhole]

The Pegasus. You're sending the ship into an asteroid, I would think if an option existed to make the ship smaller, you'd take it.

 

[David cgc]

I've not heard of fanon but I assume it's a portmanteau of fan and canon, and thus a way to diminish an idea.

It's not necessarily pejorative, but it does try to point out elements of lore that aren't actually canon even though they're so commonly repeated people assume they must be. Like, "Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet" was a common bit of fanon before Enterprise, and raised as a criticism since T'Pol being part of the crew violated that canon. Except it wasn't canon, it was something that had just been repeated often enough people assumed it was canon and treated it that way. Thus, fanon.

I think this is a great thread, but we have the answer already: they sparingly used saucer separation because it introduces delays in the story -- or eliminates the story entirely (as in the case of delivering the Romulan survivor in The Enemy).

I think they should've just bitten the bullet. As time went on, they'd be able to compress the separation process as it became more familiar to the audience; eventually they'd just have the ship split in two between scenes or at the beginning of an episode without even dialog to explain it. The example I always give is the Stargate franchise; by season three, they had episodes where the team was just on an alien planet and they didn't even show a stargate, never mind the whole production of activating it. The spin-off Atlantis practically elided the Stargate device out of the show entirely.

It ended up happening anyway without them even doing it enough to get bored with it. Compare how quick the separation was in BoBW versus to "Farpoint" or "Arsenal."

The Pegasus. You're sending the ship into an asteroid, I would think if an option existed to make the ship smaller, you'd take it.

That's a prime example exegetically, too, since it would make the episode more high-stakes to have the Romulans actively holding the saucer hostage after they locked the stardrive section into the asteroid.

 

[cooleddie74]

The 1701-E saucer separating during the climactic battles of either INS or NEM would have made some sense. That would have allowed first Riker and then Picard to exercise some more flexibility in dealing with the Son'a armada and Shinzon's vessel.

 

[Farscape One]

Riker did ask if they should separate the saucer in the beginning of "Heart of Glory", but Picard said no and 'let's get more information first'. So it can be inserted as a quick exchange far more often and it wouldn't disrupt an episode's flow.

 

[Captrek]

It’s like the writers changed their minds about it. Used in EAF, mentioned in HOG, used in TAOF, then hardly ever mentioned again, with TAOF being followed by two episodes of the next six where it seems called for but not even considered on screen.

 

[Gepard]

I've not heard of fanon but I assume it's a portmanteau of fan and canon, and thus a way to diminish an idea.

"Fanon" was the term people used to use before the (imo obnoxious) "headcanon,"and means basically the same thing, albit with the implication that "fanon" is widely agreed-upon rather than individual. I encountered the term as far back as Phil Farrand's Nitpicker's Guides, if my memory serves me.

I don't know that it's any more belittling here than simply pointing out it's a fan assumption or rationalization, which it sounds like the idea is.

 

[Captrek]

The purpose of separation is to minimize potential harm when facing danger. The writers always want to maximize the stakes of danger. Maybe they decided the capacity works against their interests in that regard and was best forgotten.

 

[DonIago]

IIRC there were other BTS considerations...only the six foot model was designed to separate and then, if you separate the ship, unless you resort to stock footage, your filming budget is likely to increase. It's an imponderable whether, if TPTB had really invested in the saucer separation concept, they would have done more to make it easier to include in episodes.

That they didn't do it in certain episodes does seem counterintuitive, and I don't generally find the "we may need the power from the saucer" argument especially compelling.

 

[Captrek]

IIRC there were other BTS considerations...only the six foot model was designed to separate and then, if you separate the ship, unless you resort to stock footage, your filming budget is likely to increase. It's an imponderable whether, if TPTB had really invested in the saucer separation concept, they would have done more to make it easier to include in episodes.

That they didn't do it in certain episodes does seem counterintuitive, and I don't generally find the "we may need the power from the saucer" argument especially compelling.

You have the stock footage of separation, and you don’t need to show the separation sequence every time it happens any more than you need to show the ship going into warp every time Picard says “Engage.” You may need to shoot new footage with the separate saucer and stardrive models if you don’t have sufficient stock footage of them.