What if the Stargazer was destroyed at Zeta Maxima?

[USS Fardell]

What if the Stargazer destroyed at Zeta Maxima?

What if instead of barely escaping being destroyed by the Ferengi ship, which they destroy using the Picard Maneouvre, the Stargazer is instead lost with all hands?

What happens now? Picard is out of the picture entirely, having gone down with his ship. Who will captain the Enterprise D now? How will this alternative captain deal with the Farpoint Mystery and Q?
What further effects? What happens when the Borg show up (as they will at some point)?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Same as before, only the captain has a different name.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

If the Stargazer had been destroyed at Maxia Zeta, we'd have Captain Thomas Halloway or Captain Edward Jellico as the commanding officer of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC 1701-D.

Meh.

 

[NiteTrek]

What if instead of barely escaping being destroyed by the Ferengi ship, which they destroy using the Picard Maneouvre, the Stargazer is instead lost with all hands?

It SHOULD have been destroyed, by Picard at the very least. Nice of him to leave Federation technology floating around for anyone to grab.

Let me guess.....the auto destruct was off line? I don't know how many times they used that poor excuse in Trek but it always made no sense. At the very least, they should have had a bunch of dynamite and lit a fuse like in the old Roadrunner cartoons.

Another example of poor writing.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

Christopher L Bennet's novel The Buried Age gives a plausible explanation as to why the ship was left.

Without giving too much away, the Stargazer was abandoned after an attack, and became so poisoned and toxic for various reasons that no one could go back aboard, so she was put onto autopilot and aimed for one of the gas giants, where she would have been pulled in by the greater mass and destroyed. However, the ship instead "bounced" off the atmosphere of the gas giant and ricocheted back into space, where the Ferengi found her.

 

[NiteTrek]

Without giving too much away, the Stargazer was abandoned after an attack, and became so poisoned and toxic for various reasons that no one could go back aboard, so she was put onto autopilot and aimed for one of the gas giants,

Ok, if they were able to put her on autopilot and aim her for a gas giant, that would imply that they had some "remote" control over the ship, therefore, they still should have been able to set the auto-destruct via remote control.

Not a bad attempt at fixing the "error" but the explanation is still full of holes.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

They were using a PADD to remote control it. As far as I can remember, the computer had gone off-line or there was limited computer control and they weren't able to access the self-destruct.

 

[NiteTrek]

As far as I can remember, the computer had gone off-line or there was limited computer control and they weren't able to access the self-destruct.

Ding...ding....ding! How inconvenient! .....and overused!

The use of poor writing to fix poor writing is never going to work.

 

[DanCPA]

Shouldn't have been destroyed. But I am amazed starfleet didn't do better job looking for it.

 

[Michael]

As far as I can remember, the computer had gone off-line or there was limited computer control and they weren't able to access the self-destruct.

Ding...ding....ding! How inconvenient! .....and overused!

The use of poor writing to fix poor writing is never going to work.

Funny, because I was under the impression you haven't read the book.

 

[NiteTrek]

Funny, because I was under the impression you haven't read the book.

I haven't read the book. Did you read the post that I quoted? The explanation that was given, if true, sounds like poor writing in my opinion. I don't have to read the whole frickin book to comment on their "solution."

Maybe I should clarify....perhaps the writing was absolutely GRAND! When I refer to "poor writing" I am talking about the plot holes and poor attempts at correcting the plot holes or "brilliant execution of poor ideas."

While I'm thinking about it, another one that's absolutely ridiculous is when they try to shut off something but can't because the controls are "fused."

"Shut down the engines!"
"We can't, the controls are fused."

Absolute garbage.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

The problem is that I'm really not doing justice to the explanation given in The Buried Age. I'm sure the author (who does frequent this board...frequently) could probably do a much better job.

 

[NiteTrek]

The problem is that I'm really not doing justice to the explanation given in The Buried Age. I'm sure the author (who does frequent this board...frequently) could probably do a much better job.

Then I'll wait for his response.

 

[USS Fardell]

Same as before, only the captain has a different name.

I doubt that

 

[Timo]

Let me guess.....the auto destruct was off line? I don't know how many times they used that poor excuse in Trek but it always made no sense. At the very least, they should have had a bunch of dynamite and lit a fuse like in the old Roadrunner cartoons.

Works for cartoons.

However, in the real world, it's hellishly difficult to scuttle a ship (a thing that floats on water, and at first thought should cease to do so with little effort). Most efforts fail: ships just aren't built so that they would be easy to destroy, not unless a special "self-destruct mechanism" is used. And if that mechanism doesn't work, then you can't self-destruct. Ships don't carry the sort of munitions that could be easily jury-rigged to blow large holes below the waterline, for example.

Really, if there is a need to scuttle a ship quickly, the preferred option is not to rig explosives or open valves, but run the thing aground (provided there is ground in sight). It will not completely destroy the ship (unless the skipper gets lucky), but at least it will deprive her from the enemy for a few weeks or months; a failure of explosives or valves will not offer even that much of a delay. The 19th century is rife with stories of attempted scuttling by valves or fire and subsequent humiliating capture of key warships, especially in the Americas and the Indian Ocean.

Now, one might argue that a starship would have one means of self-destruct that is certain to work: the antimatter stores aboard. We have seen our share of accidents in that respect already. But that's like arguing that warships of old had an idiotproof self-destruct system in their munitions magazines or coal bunkers, which often blew up by accident. Not true: it was insanely difficult to deliberately blow up those volatile things, exactly because the accidents did happen, and because engineers then did their damnedest to prevent further accidents.

It just mightn't be technologically viable to build a deliberate weakness into the antimatter containment systems that could then be exploited for self-immolation. Or in other words, the weakness could be built in, but with so many safeguards that if enough wires were cut and pipes bent, it would be impossible to exploit the weakness.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ghel]

I, for one, also have no problem with the quirkyness of the self destruct mechanism in the Trek universe or with the crew of Stargazer leaving the ship floating in space.

Really, all we know about Stargazer came from Picard's memory. Based on his memory, the bridge of the Stargazer was in flames and the crew had to pull off a desperation maneuver to save their hides. Given the condition of the ship (and the fact that they were in a full battle) chances are pretty good that the crew either assumed that the ship was already too far destroyed to be useful to anyone outside of the Federation and/or there just wasn't enough time to set the self-destruct mechanism (since it seems to take three crew members and a good five minutes on screen).

Even when the Ferengi bring the ship back, Picard doesn't seem worried that they might have gotten some top secret technology off of it. Chances are, anything useful was destroyed in the initial attack and Picard knew it.

 

[Timo]

Or if the attack didn't destroy all Federation secrets, Picard could have deleted them with a push of a button. Or, more probably, with something like this:

"Computer, this is Captain Jean-Luc Picard, authorization Fancy Code Seven-Eleven. Purge main computer. Fuse all engineering subsystems. Countdown to self-destruct."
"Unable to comply on self-destruct. Access to demolition charges severed."
"Umm. Very well. Proceed anyway. And see you on the other side - it was fun while it lasted."
"Proceeding. Daisy, daisy..."

Fundamentally, though, I don't see why spaceships should be destroyed when abandoned - least of all antiquated spaceships that were recently bested in battle. It smacks of paranoia that isn't part of the easygoing Starfleet of TNG.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dancing Doctor]

And the Stargazer was definitely antiquated, probably even when Picard first took command.

Also, considering how much damage was probably done to her during the battle, it makes sense that there would be little of worth remaining...intact, at least. And being left alone in space for 10+ years or thereabouts wouldn't help either.

 

[JM1776]

Fundamentally, though, I don't see why spaceships should be destroyed when abandoned - least of all antiquated spaceships that were recently bested in battle. It smacks of paranoia that isn't part of the easygoing Starfleet of TNG.

Timo Saloniemi

Actually, it makes perfect sense, when one takes into account the principles of Starfleet's Prime Directive. One civilization's "antiquated" is another's "advanced," after all; and if five days, weeks, months, years or even decades after the battle representatives of a clever pre- or only recently warp-capable civilization stumble upon, say, an abandoned Constitution-class starship with even a few of its systems intact and accessible, they've just been handed a technological smorgasboard for which they may not be prepared. This could result in anything from culpability in the deaths of curious explorers who blow themselves to bits tinkering where they don't belong, to that in a new enemy for the Federation a generation afterward.

Makes you wonder if the Carthaginians said, "Aaaahhh, don't worry; it's just one warship. What could the Romans possibly do with it?"

 

[ozgood1701]

Not having read any of the novals about Stargazer I will put a different explanation forward. Picard may have wanted to recover the vessel later once he had gotten the crew to safty. After the crew of the Stargazer had been picked up Starfleet may not have wanted the expense of recovering her.
Remember Stargazer's class was a contempery of the Enterprise and the Relient class. At the time of Zeta Maxia the Hull was maybe 60 to 80 years old and nearing the end of its service life. Stargazer was not worth the salavage effort so Starfleet just had her written off and left her to drift.