The separating-saucer design

[Unicron]

seems to me like in some episode or another the saucer sections warp rating was listed as warp 3. I also can't imagine how that could work given the lack of nacelles, but hey, this is science FICTION and the plot demanded it...

You don't need nacelles, just a warp core of some type. We've seen plenty of Trek ships which don't use nacelles to house their engines.

 

[Nebusj]

With the proviso that I do not take too literally any size estimates for starships, I would like to point out that 10,000 supporting beams seems to be a rather large number for the available cross-sectional area, even though that area is something like the size of the original Enterprise's saucer section.

I didn't say 10,000 support beams.

Well, you said 10,000 points. What's supposed to be keeping the ship from falling apart? Note that, for example, in the current Space Shuttle, there's the parts that give the orbiter or external tank its structure and there's the parts that hold in usable volume. There's little reason to think that will change. What you need a hull for in a spaceship is to keep the interior inside and the exterior outside.

Also, I'd point out that given the feats of force field, tractor beam, transporter, and replicator technology which we have seen the Federation has, there's not much reason to think the docking clamps are keychain rings. I would be willing to bet the ``clamps'' are actually fused into their alternate selves on docking, with enough cut away as part of the undocking to allow the pieces to separate. (Note the debris we see flying loose when the saucer does undock.)

I'm sure they would use technology to hold it together, which is why I brought up the power-loss event. It is a weakness to rely on this in battle, when it's most likely to lose power. I'm not really seeing your "fusing" idea. That doesn't make sense to me. What if it were fused when the power is off -- when they might most want to separate?

Guaranteeing a successful splitting of things that need to be severed is a nagging problem for any sort of design in which things need to come apart. Look at the efforts made to guarantee in the Apollo Lunar Module that the Ascent state would have all its connections to the Descent stage severed on command; or similarly, to sever the connections between the Command Module and the Service Module on command. But the improvement in capabilities the severing offers makes the problems worth attacking.

I'd note, too, that force field technology --- and it doesn't take much imagination to see how force fields can be cutting fields --- is reliable enough in the 23rd century to form emergency bulkheads in damaged ships; and is reliable enough in the 24th century that a third of a bridge can be ripped open and exposed to space, and in the midst of battle, not a single person on the command crew will suggest relocating to a metal box. We've seen even more reliable behavior from Federation gravity-control technology. These make an enormous number of construction methods practical.

And finally there's the examples of the show: while the Enterprise didn't get into many battles, the neck and the docking section were never specifically targeted. Apparently opponents found attacking that to have much less tactical merit than attacking the engines would be.

Yeah, and this is truly the crux of the matter; I think they simply screwed up with the design at the beginning of the show. The separating saucer scenario was basically a no-show later on.

While the separating saucer didn't appear to be as useful as the original designers (in-universe and in-reality) expected, there isn't the evidence that saucer separation was a weak point in the design: it was never identified as a weak point in combat, it was never of tactical interest to an enemy, and it did allow the saucer section to serve as lifeboat on three occasions (one of them indeed saving the life of nearly the whole crew).

 

[Renvar]

It "holds the ship together" in a sense of acceleration forces and very possibly from the shift of sudden impacts.

Yep, so it could seemingly protect the areas of the ship that would be flimsy without it, like the rather large warp nacelles mounted on the tiny posts. I assume that it's doing this by using forcefields to reinforce the molecular bonds of the ship's frame.

The connecting area of the drive section seems to fit flush to the concave of the saucer, so the only way I see for a ship's weapons to reach the connective joints would be to burn through possibly several dozen meters of duranium. They'd probably have to burn to several such joints to make any difference. I can think of several other quicker ways to disable the Enterprise, such as shooting the exposed bridge or deflector array, followed by the impulse engines or photon torpedo tubes to possibly cause secondary explosions.

 

[Jeri]

Does it really matter if the joint is a weak point? It's negated by the structural integrity and inertial dampener systems, and if either of those fail, the crew is either decompressed or chunky salsa.

They've been without power numerous times without being blown into space; and if they're without power, they won't be moving at warp. It doesn't make sense to create a design that leaves a crew more vulnerable in their most vulnerable situations.

 

[Jeri]

Well, you said 10,000 points. What's supposed to be keeping the ship from falling apart?

Whatever combination of construction techniques is used, it's used over the entire volume of the connection, instead of being confined to the small surface area of a number of clamps.

and in the midst of battle, not a single person on the command crew will suggest relocating to a metal box...

If no power is available for a force field, then they seal off the deck and abandon it.

While the separating saucer didn't appear to be as useful as the original designers (in-universe and in-reality) expected, there isn't the evidence that saucer separation was a weak point in the design: it was never identified as a weak point in combat...

One wouldn't expect that if the show's producers decided they'd made an error with the Enterprise, then they would show how. It makes more sense just to let it go.

 

[Jeri]

The connecting area of the drive section seems to fit flush to the concave of the saucer, so the only way I see for a ship's weapons to reach the connective joints would be to burn through possibly several dozen meters of duranium. They'd probably have to burn to several such joints to make any difference. I can think of several other quicker ways to disable the Enterprise...

Me, too; I agree with the easier ways. However, if I wanted to be really nasty to the civilians, I might concentrate torpedo fire in bursts at one single point along the joint and get the saucer rocking against the clamps and shear them off. The first one would be the hardest, but they would go faster after that.

 

[Timo]

The example you chose proves the point: the armored-car thieves go after the locking mechanism. It, too, is a joint and is the weakest point; indeed, this example is almost exactly the case of the separating-saucer design.

Actually, it's almost the complete opposite.

Cutting into the lock does not mean cutting through the weakest part of the structure. Rather, it means cutting through the very strongest part, the thickest door metal. It is done not because it's the easiest point of penetration, but because the rewards of getting through are the greatest there. The lock, as such an incredibly strong component with a nigh-invulnerable latch or ten, becomes vulnerable when attacked sneakily from behind.

The latches of the saucer-stardrive combo could very well be the strongest part of the ship, as far more volume and mass could be sacrificed to structural integrity at that location than at other locations that had to house other functions such as laboratories, crew quarters or fuel tanks. They might thus be able to take all possible stresses better than any other part of the ship, too.

Whether they would be vulnerable to a "back door" attack like in the classic armored car heist is a rather moot question. If the enemy cuts through the "back door", that is, the regular hull plates, then he should go after more promising targets than the stupid latches - say, those laboratories, crew quarters or fuel tanks!

The latching mechanism is probably already the least worthwhile target in the ship from the tactical point of view anyway. The best the enemy can hope to achieve there is separate the ship at a seam where she is supposed to separate anyway: damage would be minimal as such. Far better to try and separate the port side of the saucer from the starboard side...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

FYI, there are 32 docking clamps, mostly in pairs. They are L-shaped in profile, enter recesses in the opposite surface, and slide to lock. When locked there is a locking wedge behind each clamp preventing it from retracting.

Tech manual, page 27.

It doesn't say in the manual, but my feeling is that the wedge, logically, locks positively into place, requiring a specific powered command to retract. In that case, a power failure would leave the wedges in place, and the saucer locked to the hull.

The manual also specifically states that the saucer has no warp capability.

Roumlan agents may take this info with a grain of their favorite seasoning.

 

[Jeri]

Timo, In your example, the locking mechanism is the weakest part of the design if it is vulnerable from behind; thieves wouldn't use that method were it not. And were the saucer latches the strongest part of the ship, then most designs -- regardless of a separation feature -- would incorporate that construction method. As far as I know, they don't. In addition, there are going to be hatches in the hulls for numerous accesses needed between the two sections during regular operations, piercing the connecting surfaces.

The danger of separating at the seam is the one in question; and it's not insignificant. I haven't advocated cutting through the hull; as I said, the force at work is twisting or shearing of the clamps. The aft portion of the saucer is connected by only a few clamps (probably one or two at the closest point to the edge); and by far the main bulk of the saucer is located on the other side of those. They would make a handy fulcrum once a clamp was sheared off near the edge, leaving further clamps vulnerable.

It seems to me that the least vulnerable design is one of a domed hockey puck, without protrusions such as nacelles or saucers. It's nice to have the nacelles away from the ship for a bit of a safety margin; but if I have enemies who want to shear off the nacelles or the families, I'd rather travel compact. The convenient seam already existing at the saucer section makes it easier.

Forbin, thanks for the info. Thirty-two clamps is a lot of clamps; but that is a very large saucer, mostly hanging out into space on the other side of them. Interesting about the saucer no-warp capability; they must have been close to the starbase in "Arsenal of Freedom." Also, Geordi directed the ensign to take them away from Minos at warp for 28 seconds, so maybe that put them within range. Can't say how that squares with the "Encounter at Farpoint" example.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

This point may be familar, but does it really matter how much weapons fire the clamps can take if you consider the (supposed) yield of an average photon torpedo, which should alone be able to vaporize the whole connection area regardless of it being a seperation line or the entire structure being integrated. Starships would by normal logic be vulnerable anywhere with the shields down, but instead most weapons on Star Trek seem to have the yield of a sailing-age cannonade. There are far more vulnerable points, like the ships umbilical ports, the antimatter ports, the warp core ejection hatch, and the main bridge. Hit any one of those and a Galaxy Class would definitley be in a world of pain. Shear the saucer off and now you've got two hostile targets. Two-pronged death is upon ye at that point.

 

[Timo]

Timo, In your example, the locking mechanism is the weakest part of the design if it is vulnerable from behind; thieves wouldn't use that method were it not.

Let's not confuse "weak" with "vulnerable". Those two are typically the exact opposites in military applications, because one attempts to cover vulnerabilities with strength.

Even "vulnerable" is a relative issue. If loss of one component can jeopardize the entire system, then that part might be considered vulnerable even when it is the best protected - say, the king on the battlefield, behind his armies, or the lock in the armored door, behind the strongest armor. Whether loss of docking latches could jeopardize a Galaxy is not in question as such; but whether such loss would present a greater jeopardy, or present it with lesser effort, than an attack directed at some other component, is far from said.

In an armored car, the lock latches and the hinges are at least as strong as the door itself, and typically stronger. And while the lock mechanism may be vulnerable even though the latches are strong, the hinges are typically neither weak nor vulnerable, despite being moving parts. So one needs expert knowledge on which parts of the system to attack for the desired outcome (in this case, quickest possible entry) - and sometimes the best option is to go directly against the armor and punch a man-sized hole in it, rather than try and find single points of failure that may not really be there.

And were the saucer latches the strongest part of the ship, then most designs -- regardless of a separation feature -- would incorporate that construction method.

You mean, dedicate the whole deck to structural integrity? You couldn't build starships that way. Most of the ship would have to be made of weaker stuff so that it would have at least some functionality apart from just "holding together".

as I said, the force at work is twisting or shearing of the clamps.

But the same force is twisting and shearing at the neck, which doesn't mind the treatment. We're thus talking about a highly hypothetical situation where the enemy would be able to overcome the considerable safety marigins of the structures, yet would still decide to concentrate on the docking latches (either by firing at them, or firing in a manner that endangers them) instead of striking at structures of direct tactical worth. And as pointed out, mechanical vulnerability only seems to become a factor at total and prolonged power loss - a situation where such vulnerability really doesn't matter much anyway, as the enemy can wreak his desired sort of havoc with impunity and probably doesn't bother with indirect attacks such as attempts to mechanically fatigue the spaceframe.

It's nice to have the nacelles away from the ship for a bit of a safety margin; but if I have enemies who want to shear off the nacelles or the families, I'd rather travel compact.

I wonder if the lack of nacelle clearance is a factor in the inferior warp performance of the Defiant. If not, it indeed makes no sense for Starfleet to keep on building ships with long, slender engine pylons. Although conversely, since Starfleet does build that way, we must infer that this is the exact right thing to do, and doesn't pose any risks of importance.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Trekker4747]

Keep in mind that firstly, Starfleet has shown itself time and time again to be "form" over "function" since their tech-level allows them to do so much with a and not sacrafice b.

Secondly, keep in mind Starfleet is a peaceful organization that avoids battle at all costs and even then only in defense.

Both explain why Starfleet doesn't build their ships compact without possible structural weaknesses. They simply don't want to and there's no need to. They're not going out there looking for a fight.

 

[Timo]

Perhaps more importantly, the slim parts and joints have never been shown to be weaknesses in combat.

No Starfleet vessel has died of snapped pylon or bent neck so far. After significant maiming, the Reliant's nacelle was sheared off - having first been gutted by a phaser, an operation that made the shearing off an unnecessary stunt. Previous shots utterly mauled the torpedo launcher, mounted on very slim pylons, but failed to damage said pylons.

In contrast, solid hits on the bulkiest part of the hull have often proved decisive and devastating. The enemy usually tends to have the same capacity for precision targeting as Starfleet does, yet they never go for the slim parts. If they have enough muscle, they punch right through the main hull; if they have less power, they aim at strategically interesting targets such as the nacelles (not their pylons) or the weapon emplacements or the oddly exposed bridge.

In some circumstances, a ramming attack may be employed, and the Jem'Hadar in "Tears of the Prophets" sliced off a Klingon engine by flying through its pylon - which soon proved to be simply a case of bad aim, when another Jem'Hadar ship did equal or greater damage by simply plunging onto the main hull head on. In any case, the first attacker hit a structure much broader than any Starfleet pylon, and still managed to utterly destroy it, so again there would be no particular reason to aim specifically for the thin components of a Starfleet ship when performing this sort of an attack. Indeed, the Jem'Hadar didn't in their titular episode, when finishing off the Odyssey.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jeri]

Timo, vulnerabilities are weaknesses; the key concept is the "attempt" to convert them into strengths. In the case of the armored car story and the saucer section, the attempt isn't successful. Designs have weaknesses; some can be protected, and some not. The A-10 and the Klingon Bird of Prey have the same weaknesses inherent in other craft, except that their redundancies and reinforcements make a generally successful conversion to strengths.

I can live with the nacelle designs on a Bird of Prey; even dead in space without power, it would be hard to separate the nacelles. That's why it isn't tried on that design. Now, for the reason it isn't tried on Starfleet vessels: once again, it goes back to the fact that they use the design that debuted in 1966, and the producers of the show are not going to showcase the flaws of the show's icon. I don't mind particularly; but I'm not going to be driving that ship in real life if I have a choice. And the separating-saucer design is beyond the pale.

You made my point about incorporating latches into all the designs: as you said, you can't build ships that way, including this one. In fact, I don't think just incorporating the latches into the other designs constitutes dedicating a whole deck to structural integrity -- but it does in the separating-saucer design. The fact that shearing and twisting don't overly affect the entire volume of a solid construction was my point, too.

Trekker4747, having a peaceful mission is no reason to fly problematic designs. As Uhura said, it's a big galaxy. Were I out in it alone, I'd rather have the safest ship possible. In addition, they can accomplish their tasks inside of a compact ship, as well as inside one with critical systems hanging off it in invitation. Having a peaceful mission wouldn't preclude enemies from demoralizing tactics of harming civilians; were Starfleet my enemy, I would make them pay for injecting large numbers of their species into harm's way and specifically try to kill them all. One has to assume an enemy would do both -- and right away. The fact that it didn't happen in the show is an elephant in the room.

Shear the saucer off and now you've got two hostile targets. Two-pronged death is upon ye at that point.

This is a consideration, and one I already thought of. Were two ships more of a threat than one, then the two-part Enterprise would have used that tactic often, I would think: it's a feature they wouldn't have minded showcasing. I'm guessing that guarding the passengers is more of a problem than a second ship is an advantage. In addition, any ships attacking the saucer to get at the civilians are going to know about the design and bring company. At least, that's what I would do.

 

[jealousblues]

In rewatching TNG from the start, I'm reminded of a couple of questions I had about the separating-saucer design. (They have probably been asked before; but after a search, I didn't find anything recently.)

(1) Is the separation joint a weak point in the design? Would it snap apart there easier -- and should enemy ships focus their fire on that joint? In case of a power failure, would the locks release, except for their mechanical component?

(2) What is the saucer segment using for warp drive, without nacelles?

Your help would be appreciated! Thanks.

I doubt it would be a weak point, after you cut through the sheilds I would think a phaser shot anywhere would screw the hull?

I always wondered why they didnt seperate whenever they went into a fight.

or why all the ships have scaucers in the war scenes

(other than it would make the ships look ugly)

 

[AlanC9]

Looking at where the locking mechanisms are, if you can blow through enough of the hull to hit them, you can also blow through enough of the hull to breach the warp core. Or the photon torpedo launcher, or any other system you'd like.

And let's say you do blow the saucer off. What have you accomplished? By definition, losing the saucer doesn't impede the combat efficiency of the Battle Section.

 

[AlanC9]

There actually is a little more evidence that the saucer does have some kind of warp core on board, if you believe the tech manual. There's supposed to be a photon torpedo tube in the saucer, only uncovered when the saucer separates from the battle section. But without antimatter reactants from the warp core, you can't charge a photon torpedo. Therefore....

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

I think there are probably antimatter reserve tanks just for the aft tube, and I remember seeing mention of "Warp sustainers" in the saucer, which would be powered by the fusion generators and would allow it to "Coast" at warp for a while. Obviosuly, if the saucer didn't have ANY warp capabilities, it probably would have been torn apart as it left the stardrive, or could have encoutnered relativistic time dilation. (I don't claim to be an expert on these things, though.)

 

[Forbin]

There actually is a little more evidence that the saucer does have some kind of warp core on board, if you believe the tech manual. There's supposed to be a photon torpedo tube in the saucer, only uncovered when the saucer separates from the battle section. But without antimatter reactants from the warp core, you can't charge a photon torpedo. Therefore....

Antimatter doesn't have to be from the core. The core gets it a from a supply in tanks. No reason the torpedo magazine can't have an antimatter storage tank of its own.

 

[foxmulder710]

Has anyone wondered what it would have looked like for the NCC-1701 to have saucer separated?

Or VGR?