DS9: Why do Galaxy class ships fight with saucers docked?
Troy Heagy
class starship could remove the saucer and become a powerful weapon:
less mass = more maneuverable. And yet in the DS9 Dominion War we see
dozens of galaxy class ships entering battle with their massive
saucers still attached. Wouldn't it make more sense to enter the war
*without* the saucer (leave the saucers orbiting Earth or Vulcan in
dry dock)?????
Having the saucer installed crippled their maneuverability. No wonder
the Fed lost so many ships to tiny, tight-turning Jem'Hadar. Very
poor tactics IMHO.
EvilBill
Half the phaser banks are also in the saucer section; it was probably a
case of sacrificing maneuvrability for weapons power.
--
--
"I see what the nhh-stars do, because so fair is their shape; it is
well for me with them and it is well for them. I am a nhh-star, the
companion of a nhh-star, I become a nhh-star, and I will not suffer for
ever."
EvilBill - http://www.evilbill.co.uk
My Quake2 FTP site: ftp://65.30.181.223/quake/EvilBill/
Matt Adams
1) Perhaps the Galaxy-class ships were serving as "umbrellas" for the
smaller vessels?
2) I'd imagine that those ships were without non-Starfleet personnel. And
also we hear of "ground forces" (perhaps the next generation MACO?) by
Admiral Ross in "What You Leave Behind." Galaxy-class ships can handle up
to 16,000 people (1,000 crew, 15,000 evacuation limit), so they could be
used as troop transports.
3) The more the saucer section gets shot up, the less the more-explosive
prone stardrive gets hit. The saucer section's bulk impedes
maneuverability, but also provides more surface area to avoid a lucky hit to
a nacelle. When the saucer is chewed up, the stardrive section ditches it
and contiues the fight.
4) As extra protection for the Battle Bridge. We've all heard that lame
crack about the bridge sticking out on deck 1, but I'd like to think that
Starfleet officers are smart enough to get "underground" before going into a
D-Day type of combat action! There's nothing that says the entire ship
can't be controlled from the Battle Bridge, and in docked configuration it
would have quite a bit of the saucer section as armor!
5) The saucer's impulse engines could be providing serious power to the
weapons/shields.
6) The Main Shuttlebay is supposedly massive. It could be that Galaxy-class
ships were used as support vessels (i.e. "motherships") for smaller craft.
Don't forget that the Dominion had enormous vessels as well...the ship in
the episode "Valiant" was supposed to have dwarfed the Galaxy-class! We
know how well a Defiant-class vessel matched up against that monster, so
perhaps Starfleet was counting on the larger ships to take the battle to
them.
Matt
http://www.infiniteplayground.com
"Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:abf84c3c.04042...@posting.google.com...
John Duncan Yoyo
<n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <abf84c3c.04042...@posting.google.com>, Troy
>Heagy <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> less mass = more maneuverable.
>
>Even in space?
Momentum is a mass related property.
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
Paul Vader
>> less mass = more maneuverable.
>
Yes, definitely. F=MA. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
jayembee
>Some theories from a Galaxy-class fan:
[snip]
My theory is that The Powers That Be thought the whole concept of the
saucer section detaching from the rest of the ship looked good on
paper, but when it actually came to showing it in action, it looked so
ludicrous, that TPTB decided to forget all about that nifty little
"feature".
Was that "feature" ever even *mentioned* after TNG S1?
-- jayembee
Bob Flaminio
> My theory is that The Powers That Be thought the whole concept of the
> saucer section detaching from the rest of the ship looked good on
> paper, but when it actually came to showing it in action, it looked so
> ludicrous, that TPTB decided to forget all about that nifty little
> "feature".
>
> Was that "feature" ever even *mentioned* after TNG S1?
Not discounting your first paragraph, but the Enterprise-D did a saucer
separation in the movie "Star Trek: Generations", just prior to its
demise.
--
Bob
EvilBill
"Best of Both Worlds" and the "Generations" movie.
> -- jayembee
David Johnston
wrote:
>In TNG "Encounter at Farpoint" it was established that the Galaxy
>class starship could remove the saucer and become a powerful weapon:
>less mass = more maneuverable.
And then later on it was shown that the phasers were located on a
ring on the saucer section, making the saucer separation a remarkably
stupid idea.
David Johnston
<john-dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:58:49 -0500, Keeper of the Purple Twilight
><n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <abf84c3c.04042...@posting.google.com>, Troy
>>Heagy <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> less mass = more maneuverable.
>>
>>Even in space?
>
>Momentum is a mass related property.
And that might actually matter if they weren't using non-newtonian
propulsion.
Simon Moore
is probably right when it comes to general operations or battle use.
Si M
"Bob Flaminio" <b...@flaminio.com> wrote in message
news:c6m5r0$danqk$1...@ID-40152.news.uni-berlin.de...
Elvis Gump
Not necessarily because if you've ever looked at the model of the D it had
those phaser array emitters all over it. I have a little diecast model of
the D around here someplace someone gave me eons ago and it even has
emitters on the connector pylon stump that is covered when the saucer is
docked.
The only thing about the design that seems illogical to me is if the saucer
is intended to be used to evac families and noncombatants in case of attack
why wouldn't the saucer have some limited emergency warp engine capacity?
Nothing spectacular but just fast enough to get it out of a battle area
while the stardrive section could cover it's retreat if necessary.
None of the Fed starships ever seemed to be quite as well thought out given
the level of technology that they seem to have. The ability to get the
saucer section to safety seems a woeful omission.
--
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy
action."
-- Ian Fleming
Mike Dicenso
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> In article <abf84c3c.04042...@posting.google.com>, Troy
> Heagy <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > less mass = more maneuverable.
>
> Even in space?
Power from the saucer impulse engines; can carry thousands of troops, and
have those big huge phaser arrays.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, jayembee wrote:
> "Matt Adams" <rot...@SPAMINTHEPLACEWHEREYOUAREyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Some theories from a Galaxy-class fan:
> [snip]
>
> My theory is that The Powers That Be thought the whole concept of the
> saucer section detaching from the rest of the ship looked good on
> paper, but when it actually came to showing it in action, it looked so
> ludicrous, that TPTB decided to forget all about that nifty little
> "feature".
No, it wound up being too expensive to carry out on a regular basis like
they wanted, even using stock footage.
-Mike
The Merry Piper
<elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>--
>"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy
>action."
Didn't Ursula K. Leguin say that first?
--
Piper
http://tmpiper.livejournal.com/
(Take your coat off to send an e-mail)
The Merry Piper
The TOS Enterprise supposedly had that feature as well (non-canon
reference from the early "making of" books) but it was an emergency
procedure & not reversible without a space dock & repair facilities.
It seems to make slightly more sense that way ... to me, anyway.
Elvis Gump
merry_p...@coat.yahoo.com wrote on 04/27/2004 04:09 PM:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:35:46 -0500, Elvis Gump
> <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> --
>> "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy
>> action."
>
> Didn't Ursula K. Leguin say that first?
I don't know. It was a quote I found that went into my random sig generator.
Tried to read Fleming's Bond novels years ago but they struck me as so
poorly written I couldn't conceive that anyone would have thought to make
movies of them.
--
To err is human, to moo bovine.
The Merry Piper
<elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>in article kuit80t9tkgeafa0f...@4ax.com, The Merry Piper at
>merry_p...@coat.yahoo.com wrote on 04/27/2004 04:09 PM:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:35:46 -0500, Elvis Gump
>> <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>> --
>>> "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy
>>> action."
>>
>> Didn't Ursula K. Leguin say that first?
>
>I don't know. It was a quote I found that went into my random sig generator.
>Tried to read Fleming's Bond novels years ago but they struck me as so
>poorly written I couldn't conceive that anyone would have thought to make
>movies of them.
Okay ... just curious. It was one of my favorite quotes from "The
Left Hand of Darkness."
Elvis Gump
Maybe it's an old military axiom one of them can simply claim to have been
the first to repeat in print? It would seem like the sort of pearl that
would be obvious before our century.
Sadly, Leguin is still on my list of things to get around to reading. Any
recommendations of where I should start?
--
"I was walking down the street wearing glasses when the prescription ran
out."
-- Steven Wright
The Merry Piper
<elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>in article allt80l6lspl66m0v...@4ax.com, The Merry Piper at
>merry_p...@coat.yahoo.com wrote on 04/27/2004 04:55 PM:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:30:07 -0500, Elvis Gump
>> <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>> in article kuit80t9tkgeafa0f...@4ax.com, The Merry Piper at
>>> merry_p...@coat.yahoo.com wrote on 04/27/2004 04:09 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:35:46 -0500, Elvis Gump
>>>> <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy
>>>>> action."
>>>>
>>>> Didn't Ursula K. Leguin say that first?
>>>
>>> I don't know. It was a quote I found that went into my random sig generator.
>>> Tried to read Fleming's Bond novels years ago but they struck me as so
>>> poorly written I couldn't conceive that anyone would have thought to make
>>> movies of them.
>>
>> Okay ... just curious. It was one of my favorite quotes from "The
>> Left Hand of Darkness."
>
>Maybe it's an old military axiom one of them can simply claim to have been
>the first to repeat in print? It would seem like the sort of pearl that
>would be obvious before our century.
>
>Sadly, Leguin is still on my list of things to get around to reading. Any
>recommendations of where I should start?
The before mentioned "Left Hand of Darkness" would be an excellent
start. It won both the Hugo & the Nebula awards which basically means
both the fans & the critics loved it ... a rare combination.
John D. Goulden
> >action."
>
> Didn't Ursula K. Leguin say that first?
When did she say it? I first read it in Ian Fleming's 1959 novel
"Goldfinger."
--
John Goulden
The Merry Piper
Oh ... well the first reference I can recall by LeGuin is in "The Left
Hand of Darkness" published 10 years later (1969). Cool. I learned
something new today!
Michael Alan Chary
They did it in Best of Both Worlds.
--
"The Pseudo Politically Correct term that I would use to describe the mind set
of postmodernism is "epistemologically challenged": a constitutional inability
to adopt a reasonable way to tell the good stuff from the bad stuff."
- Chip Morningstar
Mike Dicenso
Actually, according to "The Apple" [TOS2] and "The Savage Curtain" [TOS3],
the E-1701 could jettison the nacelles, and or the entire star drive
section.
-Mike
Jonathan Blum
IIRC, there were a bunch of problems -- mainly the need to create a
whole second set of model footage, rather than compositing shots using
the usual intact Enterprise model. Add to that the fact (IIRC) that
only one of the models of the Big E was actually capable of
separating, and that this model was less detailed than the main one
used in later seasons... then add the fact that it's usually a waste
of screen-time to establish that the crew is schlepping to the battle
bridge, and a waste of production time to set up and light a whole
different set, and it really begins to seem like more trouble than
it's worth.
Cheers,
Jon Blum
John Duncan Yoyo
I thought it was a ram jet in impulse drive and some sort of reaction
drive at station keeping.
Tony Calguire
>
>
> Was that "feature" ever even *mentioned* after TNG S1?
>
Several people have pointed out that it was used in "Best of Both
Worlds", but I'll add that the saucer separation played an integral part
in Riker's plan to retreive Picard.
David Johnston
<john-dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:12:06 GMT, rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David
>Johnston) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:26:29 -0400, John Duncan Yoyo
>><john-dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:58:49 -0500, Keeper of the Purple Twilight
>>><n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <abf84c3c.04042...@posting.google.com>, Troy
>>>>Heagy <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> less mass = more maneuverable.
>>>>
>>>>Even in space?
>>>
>>>Momentum is a mass related property.
>>
>>And that might actually matter if they weren't using non-newtonian
>>propulsion.
>
>I thought it was a ram jet in impulse drive and some sort of reaction
>drive at station keeping.
It isn't. A ram jet would produce a bright plume of superheated
interstellar gas coming out of the engine.
Troy Heagy
> Half the phaser banks are also in the saucer section; it was probably a
> case of sacrificing maneuvrability for weapons power.
So Tasha Yar's comment that, "Without the saucer section the
Enterprise becomes a very powerful battleship" was a load of crap.
IMHO I find it annoying when the producers introduce a concept
(removable sacuer = ultra-powerful battleship) and then just totally
drop it. We fans aren't stupid. We remember.
Troy Heagy
> > Troy Heagy <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > less mass = more maneuverable.
> >
> > Even in space?
Mass has inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object going straight
ahead to continue going straight ahead. So a massive object like a
galaxy-class ship is harder to turn than a small object like a
shuttle, because the galaxy ship's inertia wants it to continue moving
straight ahead.
So, more mass = less maneuverable & less mass = more maneuverable.
Dumping the saucer removes probably half the mass, and increases
maneuverability.
Troy
John R Stobo
All good reasons. But there's another story reason I think. The saucer
can't travel FTL. Unless you can make sure you can get it out of harm's
way, and that's hard to do when you have warp propulsion, you're leaving
the suacer sitting vulnerable in space. As I remember outside of the
TNG's premiere saucer separations were only done in cases where the saucer
was out of the way--that weapons-producing planet episode--or done as a
tactical maneuver--Best of both worlds--or to escape--Generations. WEre
there others?
Michael Kinraid
Fleming may have written light hearted fare but he wrote it well.
You're surely not rating him below the factory line prose that constitutes
the majority of ST novels?!!
M.
"Elvis Gump" <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:BCB43B0F.26F59%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com...
David MacMillan
"Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:abf84c3c.04042...@posting.google.com...
> In TNG "Encounter at Farpoint" it was established that the Galaxy
> class starship could remove the saucer and become a powerful weapon:
> dozens of galaxy class ships entering battle with their massive
> saucers still attached. Wouldn't it make more sense to enter the war
> *without* the saucer
No. with the saucer, the ships are Uber. saucers are nessecary. havent you
seen Nemisis? the saucer section makes an Uber phisical weapon.
Most of the Time, on TNG anyway, The Enterprise didn't have time to release
the saucer section
Starshine Moonbeam
> In TNG "Encounter at Farpoint" it was established that the Galaxy
> class starship could remove the saucer and become a powerful weapon:
> less mass = more maneuverable. And yet in the DS9 Dominion War we see
> dozens of galaxy class ships entering battle with their massive
> saucers still attached. Wouldn't it make more sense to enter the war
> *without* the saucer (leave the saucers orbiting Earth or Vulcan in
> dry dock)?????
No. The saucer sections can't go to warp. That's because main engineering
isn't located in the saucer section. The stardrive section also houses
phaser banks and photon/quantum torpedo bays but not all of them. All
that mass also serves to protect the stardrive from damage by absorbing
hits. If you want anything hit, it's not engineering.
>
> Having the saucer installed crippled their maneuverability.
> No wonder
> the Fed lost so many ships to tiny, tight-turning Jem'Hadar. Very
> poor tactics IMHO.
It wasn't the tactics, it was the numbers. Once a Jem'Hadar attack begins
they come from everywhere.
--
mhm 31x9
Smeeter #28, 29, or 30
WSD #30
Skep-ti-cult ID# 365-12149-907
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Division of Incendiary Devices)
StArSHiNe_MoOnbEAm aT HoTMaIL DoT cOM
http://www.geocities.com/tobydog9
"Technology is getting better and that's fine but most of the time,
all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife, and a smile."
-- Robert Redford "Spy Game"
"You can run but you'll just die tired and buttered."
-- Ryannosaurus
Troy Heagy
> can't travel FTL. Unless you can make sure you can get it out of harm's
> way, and that's hard to do when you have warp propulsion, you're leaving
> the suacer sitting vulnerable in space.
True, but during the Dominion War, the saucer could be left orbiting
Earth... just take the battle portion for superior maneuverability.
David Johnston
wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:>
>> > Troy Heagy <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > less mass = more maneuverable.
>> >
>> > Even in space?
>
>
>Mass has inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object going straight
>ahead to continue going straight ahead.
Not that Star Trek ships show any sign of doing that.
GeneK
> True, but during the Dominion War, the saucer could be left orbiting
> Earth... just take the battle portion for superior maneuverability.
There are a lot of things we don't know about the capabilities of the
drive section beyond a battle. For example, its cruising range, how many
people it can sustain and for how long vs. the number of people required
to keep it running for extended periods, whether it even has crew quarters
or a sickbay, etc. If it was designed for maximum maneuverability and
speed when separated from the saucer section for brief episodes of combat,
it may be as dependent on the saucer section for extended support as the
saucer is on it for warp drive.
GeneK
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 4/15/2004
John DiFool
<elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>The only thing about the design that seems illogical to me is if the saucer
>is intended to be used to evac families and noncombatants in case of attack
>why wouldn't the saucer have some limited emergency warp engine capacity?
>Nothing spectacular but just fast enough to get it out of a battle area
>while the stardrive section could cover it's retreat if necessary.
>
>None of the Fed starships ever seemed to be quite as well thought out given
>the level of technology that they seem to have. The ability to get the
>saucer section to safety seems a woeful omission.
The (non-canon, derived from FJ Designs) Star Fleet Battles
Dreadnaught has a single warp nacelle attached to the saucer.
Never saw anything like that puppy on the shows...
John DiFool
William December Starr
The Merry Piper <merry_p...@coat.yahoo.com> said:
>>>> "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is
>>>> enemy action."
>>>
>>> Didn't Ursula K. Leguin say that first?
>>
>> I don't know. It was a quote I found that went into my random sig
>> generator. Tried to read Fleming's Bond novels years ago but they
>> struck me as so poorly written I couldn't conceive that anyone
>> would have thought to make movies of them.
>
> Okay ... just curious. It was one of my favorite quotes from "The
> Left Hand of Darkness."
The ISFDB [1] says that _The Left Hand of Darkness_ was first
published in 1969. Given that Ian Fleming died in 1964 [2], I'd say
that his use of the saying pre-dates Le Guin's. (And he _did_ use it
in one of his James Bond novels; I know I saw it there even though I
can no longer recall which one it was in. _Goldfinger_, perhaps?)
1: <http://isfdb.tamu.edu>.
2: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Fleming>.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
The Merry Piper
Starr) wrote:
>In article <allt80l6lspl66m0v...@4ax.com>,
>The Merry Piper <merry_p...@coat.yahoo.com> said:
>
>>>>> "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is
>>>>> enemy action."
>>>>
>>>> Didn't Ursula K. Leguin say that first?
>>>
>>> I don't know. It was a quote I found that went into my random sig
>>> generator. Tried to read Fleming's Bond novels years ago but they
>>> struck me as so poorly written I couldn't conceive that anyone
>>> would have thought to make movies of them.
>>
>> Okay ... just curious. It was one of my favorite quotes from "The
>> Left Hand of Darkness."
>
>The ISFDB [1] says that _The Left Hand of Darkness_ was first
>published in 1969. Given that Ian Fleming died in 1964 [2], I'd say
Yes ... I made a post to that effect yesterday around 2000 hours
though it may not have shown up on whatever server you are using as of
yet. Thank for the information, though, it was cool of you to check
it out.
Ken from Chicago
> class starship could remove the saucer and become a powerful weapon:
> less mass = more maneuverable. And yet in the DS9 Dominion War we see
> dozens of galaxy class ships entering battle with their massive
> saucers still attached. Wouldn't it make more sense to enter the war
> *without* the saucer (leave the saucers orbiting Earth or Vulcan in
> dry dock)?????
>
> the Fed lost so many ships to tiny, tight-turning Jem'Hadar. Very
> poor tactics IMHO.
Can't the saucer section hold more ammo? and more weapons?
-- Ken from Chicago
Troy Heagy
> "Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> > True, but during the Dominion War, the saucer could be left orbiting
> > Earth... just take the battle portion for superior maneuverability.
>
> There are a lot of things we don't know about the capabilities of the
> speed when separated from the saucer section for brief episodes of combat,
> it may be as dependent on the saucer section for extended support as the
> saucer is on it for warp drive.
*Which implies the battle & saucer configurations were poorly
engineered.* What's the point of having a battle configuration if the
Feds can't use it in the Dominion War?
Troy
GeneK
> *Which implies the battle & saucer configurations were poorly
> engineered.* What's the point of having a battle configuration if the
> Feds can't use it in the Dominion War?
Because the E-D was designed for service as a Federation "ambassadorial
flagship" in "one big happy galaxy." That such a vessel was considered
the most powerful ship in the fleet was yet another indication of how
utterly unprepared the "not military" incarnation of Starfleet was to wage
an all-out war for survival.
GeneK
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.672 / Virus Database: 434 - Release Date: 4/28/2004
Doug Freyburger
> Troy Heagy wrote:
>
> > *Which implies the battle & saucer configurations were poorly
> > engineered.* What's the point of having a battle configuration if the
> > Feds can't use it in the Dominion War?
>
> Because the E-D was designed for service as a Federation "ambassadorial
> flagship" in "one big happy galaxy." That such a vessel was considered
> the most powerful ship in the fleet was yet another indication of how
> utterly unprepared the "not military" incarnation of Starfleet was to wage
> an all-out war for survival.
When the Reliant was first shown, it was presented as a War Ship that
had been built because of the Borg threat. As if the idea of a War
Ship was something new to the Federation. By the time Galaxy class
ships where built, I guess it was a forgotten idea.
Troy Heagy
> "Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> > *Which implies the battle & saucer configurations were poorly
> > engineered.* What's the point of having a battle configuration if the
> > Feds can't use it in the Dominion War?
>
> Because the E-D was designed for service as a Federation "ambassadorial
> flagship" in "one big happy galaxy." That such a vessel was considered
> the most powerful ship in the fleet was yet another indication of how
> utterly unprepared the "not military" incarnation of Starfleet was to wage
> an all-out war for survival.
>
> GeneK
Um yeah.... still haven't heard a legitimate reason for the battle
config. If not for fighting Jem'Hadar during wartime, then for what
purpose does it serve?
Troy
David Johnston
wrote:
>"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message news:<7o8kc.89875$vn.2...@sea-read.news.verio.net>...
What makes you think it serves any purpose? Maybe it was just
plain a bad idea to abandon most of your crew during a battle
and leave them lying around as helpless immobile victims.
GeneK
> Um yeah.... still haven't heard a legitimate reason for the battle
> config. If not for fighting Jem'Hadar during wartime, then for what
> purpose does it serve?
It demonstrates that:
a) The majority of the people onboard are "peaceful noncombatants"
who are excluded from the potentially aggressive actions that
might occasionally need to be carried out by only a small portion
of the ship's total complement (strictly for self defense, of course).
b) The ship's "normal" configuration is unsuited for said actions and
must be substantially altered to make them possible because "we
come in peace."
What better way to demonstrate to others that your intentions are
peaceful than to be visibly inept at preparing for aggression?
Wouter Valentijn
"EvilBill" <dev...@SPAM-ME-NOT-o-JERK-weset.freeserve.co.uk> schreef in
bericht news:c6m5so$mc5$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Behold and tremble! For jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
> > "Matt Adams" <rot...@SPAMINTHEPLACEWHEREYOUAREyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Some theories from a Galaxy-class fan:
> > [snip]
> >
> > saucer section detaching from the rest of the ship looked good on
> > paper, but when it actually came to showing it in action, it looked so
> > ludicrous, that TPTB decided to forget all about that nifty little
> > "feature".
> >
> >
>
"Arsenal of Freedom" also I think.
--
Wouter Valentijn
We shall never surrender.
-Sir Winston Churchill
Doug Freyburger
> Troy Heagy wrote:
>
> >Um yeah.... still haven't heard a legitimate reason for the battle
> >config. If not for fighting Jem'Hadar during wartime, then for what
> >purpose does it serve?
>
> What makes you think it serves any purpose?
It was in the pilot. Was it even in any of the non-pilot episodes?
Parts of pilots often end up being non-cannon compared to the rest
of the series.
I think it got retroactively forgotten. Like the Enterprise-A,
the Enterprise-D became a single hull unit after the pilot.
Then again, maybe it was just that they had a good computer image
of the entire ship, so it was easy to CGI the entire thing. So
the entire thing got used.
David Johnston
wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> Troy Heagy wrote:
>>
>> >Um yeah.... still haven't heard a legitimate reason for the battle
>> >config. If not for fighting Jem'Hadar during wartime, then for what
>> >purpose does it serve?
>>
>> What makes you think it serves any purpose?
>
>It was in the pilot.
Yes it was. But that doesn't mean it serves a useful purpose.
Iain Odlin
>It was in the pilot. Was it even in any of the non-pilot episodes?
It occurs in episode 21, "Arsenal of Freedom", and episode 75, "The Best of
Both Worlds, Part II". In episode 105, "Disaster", it is heavily discussed
as an option.
-Iain
Keeper of the Purple Twilight
<so...@spammerscrewedme.com> wrote:
> The (non-canon, derived from FJ Designs) Star Fleet Battles
> Dreadnaught has a single warp nacelle attached to the saucer.
> Never saw anything like that puppy on the shows...
There have been a few three-nacelle designs (Rigel class, refit Galaxy
class) and at least one single-nacelle ship (Freedom class) in
Starfleet.
--
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City
David E. Powell
> "Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>
> > Um yeah.... still haven't heard a legitimate reason for the battle
> > config. If not for fighting Jem'Hadar during wartime, then for what
> > purpose does it serve?
>
> It demonstrates that:
>
> a) The majority of the people onboard are "peaceful noncombatants"
> who are excluded from the potentially aggressive actions that
> might occasionally need to be carried out by only a small portion
> of the ship's total complement (strictly for self defense, of course).
>
> b) The ship's "normal" configuration is unsuited for said actions and
> must be substantially altered to make them possible because "we
> come in peace."
>
> What better way to demonstrate to others that your intentions are
> peaceful than to be visibly inept at preparing for aggression?
>
> GeneK
The first Galaxy class to face the Jem'Hadar left her nonessential personnel
at DS9 before heading into battle, if I recall correctly, but kept the
saucer on, I suppose because of firepower and other needs....
Plus they might figure some people would be confused, and it is more effects
to put in. Plus the "keep all the firepower" argument can make sense,
especially if the nonessential folks have already been taken off the ship.
Finally the saucer being left on allows evacuation of it in an emergency. I
am guessing the Galaxy class ships in the DS9 battle fleets had left most of
their nonessential people off at starbases or planets before forming up for
what they would know would be a battle, or potentially a long campaign of
battles.
DEP
Joseph Nebus
>Um yeah.... still haven't heard a legitimate reason for the battle
>config. If not for fighting Jem'Hadar during wartime, then for what
>purpose does it serve?
Well, what of it? Apparently the Galaxy Class design had as
motivating factors that it's nice to have on hand families and schools
and dolphins and all these other things that are useless on a battle
ship, but your ship is by design not in or near battle most of the time,
so they try a compromise wheren for a serious battle they leave the
non-combatants off in a presumed safe haven and go off with the rest of
the ship. It'd be useful when there are many non-combatants and the
risk of battle is rare but clear.
I don't think I'd buy that unless I knew, say, that the saucer
section's impulse drive was enough to get it a couple light years away,
but it's not the most absurd design choice possible. Certainly it
wasn't applied well during the series, but there were few times during
The Next Generation that anyone had time, or imagination, to consider a
tactical plan. They just had to wait for shields to drop to 47 percent
to wake up Picard to do something implausible but bold-sounding.
In wartime, when they could expect the ship to spend most of
its time in or at risk of combat, they could abandon the families and
frivolities and such that make a huge lifeboat generally handy and have
a completely battle-oriented crew and interior facilities; in that case
the need for saucer separation to keep non-combatants safe goes away.
Granted it's not as maneuverable as it would be with separation, but
a specifically battle-configured Galaxy class starship may make up for
that loss in better shields, or greater armaments, or similar details.
Choose your tradeoffs.
(I warn here I didn't see much of Deep Space Nine; on those
odd weekends when I could find it, they were always going off to some
other dimension or alternate history or back to 20th century Earth and
I reject those stories out of hand now.)
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GeneK
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote...
> The first Galaxy class to face the Jem'Hadar left her nonessential personnel
> at DS9 before heading into battle, if I recall correctly, but kept the
> saucer on, I suppose because of firepower and other needs....
Well, *all* the Galaxy Class vessels kept their saucers on, so presumably
(at least within canon) there must have been some rationale for it. OTOH,
thinking back, it doesn't seem to me that the Galaxies proved to be especially
effective in the Dominion war.
Mike Dicenso
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, GeneK wrote:
>
> "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote...
> > The first Galaxy class to face the Jem'Hadar left her nonessential personnel
> > at DS9 before heading into battle, if I recall correctly, but kept the
> > saucer on, I suppose because of firepower and other needs....
>
> Well, *all* the Galaxy Class vessels kept their saucers on, so presumably
> (at least within canon) there must have been some rationale for it. OTOH,
> thinking back, it doesn't seem to me that the Galaxies proved to be especially
> effective in the Dominion war.
Tell that to the Galor that got it's ass chewed up by a GCS in "Sacrifice
of Angels", or the U.S.S. Galaxy that took a near-point blank hit from a
Cardassian ODP, and still kept going while other ships got totally
trashed.
-Mike
GeneK
"Mike Dicenso" <mdic...@seds.org> wrote...
> Tell that to the Galor that got it's ass chewed up by a GCS in "Sacrifice
> of Angels", or the U.S.S. Galaxy that took a near-point blank hit from a
> Cardassian ODP, and still kept going while other ships got totally
> trashed.
Well sure, the GCS wasn't a total flop as a tactical ship. But it
clearly wasn't the triumphant juggernaut you'd have expected the
Federation's pride and joy to be. Small wonder they never threw
Picard and the E-D into the mix.
DevilsPGD
dfre...@yahoo.com (Doug Freyburger) did ramble:
>When the Reliant was first shown, it was presented as a War Ship that
>had been built because of the Borg threat. As if the idea of a War
>Ship was something new to the Federation. By the time Galaxy class
>ships where built, I guess it was a forgotten idea.
I'm a bit confused, the borg threat didn't exist (or rather, wasn't
known) until after the Galaxy class Enterprise was out flying around and
Q introduced them.
Or am I misunderstanding your statement?
--
A cheap shot is a terrible thing to waste.
David Johnston
Apparently. The Galaxy class came before the Reliant during the
period when the Federation was so smugly confident of their
invulnerability that they didn't bother to build effective combat
vessels. There's an historical precedent for that of course. In the
period between the end of the Napoleonic wars and accession
of Jacky Fisher as First Lord of the Admiralty, the British navy
totally went to hell because they had a long period of peace and
they forgot that their primary mission was not to look pretty.
The Galaxy class was badly designed, proving consistently inferior
in combat with comparably advanced vessels, and if Picard and
Riker were their best and brightest, they weren't exactly
commanded capably either.
David Johnston
<gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>
>"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote...
>> The first Galaxy class to face the Jem'Hadar left her nonessential personnel
>> at DS9 before heading into battle, if I recall correctly, but kept the
>> saucer on, I suppose because of firepower and other needs....
>
>Well, *all* the Galaxy Class vessels kept their saucers on, so presumably
>(at least within canon) there must have been some rationale for it.
If they didn't bring their saucers, then the crew would have no
quarters.
OTOH,
>thinking back, it doesn't seem to me that the Galaxies proved to be especially
>effective in the Dominion war.
>
Or at any other time.
Mike Dicenso
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, GeneK wrote:
>
> "Mike Dicenso" <mdic...@seds.org> wrote...
>
> > Tell that to the Galor that got it's ass chewed up by a GCS in "Sacrifice
> > of Angels", or the U.S.S. Galaxy that took a near-point blank hit from a
> > Cardassian ODP, and still kept going while other ships got totally
> > trashed.
>
> Well sure, the GCS wasn't a total flop as a tactical ship. But it
> clearly wasn't the triumphant juggernaut you'd have expected the
> Federation's pride and joy to be. Small wonder they never threw
> Picard and the E-D into the mix.
In what mix? The E-D was long gone by the time of the Dominion War, and
Picard and crew could only have been involved by going in on the E-E.
-Mike
GeneK
"DevilsPGD" <lalala...@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:lVnkc.14306707$Id.23...@news.easynews.com...
Doug got the ship wrong. He meant the Defiant.
B. Tkatch
<gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>"Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>
>> Um yeah.... still haven't heard a legitimate reason for the battle
>> config. If not for fighting Jem'Hadar during wartime, then for what
>> purpose does it serve?
>
>It demonstrates that:
>
>a) The majority of the people onboard are "peaceful noncombatants"
> who are excluded from the potentially aggressive actions that
> might occasionally need to be carried out by only a small portion
> of the ship's total complement (strictly for self defense, of course).
>
>b) The ship's "normal" configuration is unsuited for said actions and
> must be substantially altered to make them possible because "we
> come in peace."
>
>What better way to demonstrate to others that your intentions are
>peaceful than to be visibly inept at preparing for aggression?
>
>GeneK
Well said.
I would like to ad though. the creators of TNG and therefore the TNG
crew (and the Federation) are overwhelming political leftists and
condescending intellectuals. In Van der Hoop's first book on Jung
(Character and the Unconcious, 1923, page 169) he says of the
extravert thinking type "This applies to their scientific systems as
well as their ethics. Whatever does not fir into them, they regard as
untrue, or as an exceptional chance. They are convinced that after due
concideration, such facts can be made to agree with their system; and
if they find something in their own nature, which cannot be reconciled
with their ethics, they regard it as a chance imperfection, which they
are sure some day to get rid of. They are also ready to reject as
abnormal or morbid everything that does not fit in with their ideas."
I believe it is he who mentions elsewhere that so-called intellectuals
fall under this group. Basically, because they cannot understand a
world that does not completely works on _their_ logic and _their_
values they simply ignore it and regard everyone else as infantile.
I think that pretty well explains the Federation..They simply refuse
to accept reality. Kirk, who didn't exactly tow the colmpany line was
able to reconcile this by breaking the rules. Picard was a stick in
the mud, and probably did more damage than good be refusing to accept
reality.
Thus, the designers of the Enterprise, and all galaxy class ships,
believe in peace and related nonsense. They only incoporate warring
tools because they have to. Seriously, they even made a deal not to
work on a cloaking device! What were they thinking? They simply refuse
to accept reality, and believe peace will prevail. The alternate
universe is probably where "we" live.
As for the smaller fighting machines, not being the flagship, those
morons with their heads in the plasma clouds, allow the non-important
people to design them. Thus, they get the real effective designs.
Even with all their stupidity, the Federation did *something*
correctly.
And, why they just don't simply separate all the time. Like
discharging a gun now, they probably have to fill out too much
paperwork afterwards, and are taught in the scholl not to, as it is a
"last resort".
B.
DevilsPGD
<gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> did ramble:
>> >When the Reliant was first shown, it was presented as a War Ship that
>> >had been built because of the Borg threat. As if the idea of a War
>> >Ship was something new to the Federation. By the time Galaxy class
>> >ships where built, I guess it was a forgotten idea.
>>
>> I'm a bit confused, the borg threat didn't exist (or rather, wasn't
>> known) until after the Galaxy class Enterprise was out flying around and
>> Q introduced them.
>>
>> Or am I misunderstanding your statement?
>
>Doug got the ship wrong. He meant the Defiant.
Fair enough... That's what I thought actually, which is why I didn't
address the ship name or class or anything in my post.
My point was that regardless of what ship(s) were created to address the
Borg threat, the Galaxy class ship Enterprise was obviously built first
since it was the ship that introduced the Borg to the federation.
--
This signature was randomly selected
GeneK
"B. Tkatch" wrote in message
> I believe it is he who mentions elsewhere that so-called intellectuals
> fall under this group. Basically, because they cannot understand a
> world that does not completely works on _their_ logic and _their_
> values they simply ignore it and regard everyone else as infantile.
>
> I think that pretty well explains the Federation..They simply refuse
> to accept reality. Kirk, who didn't exactly tow the colmpany line was
> able to reconcile this by breaking the rules. Picard was a stick in
> the mud, and probably did more damage than good be refusing to accept
> reality.
It certainly sounds like the Federation in newtrek, but it doesn't seem
to me that the Federation was always the way it is now. In TOS it had
its share of reality-challenged paper-pushers who didn't understand
how things were out in the field, but the people on the scene appeared
to have considerable leeway in bending the rules to get things done,
not only within their society as depicted onscreen, but in the minds
of TPTB and the viewers. *Of course* Kirk was going to ignore the
brainless naivete of the Federation Special Representative, that was
his role as the hero of the day. But by Picard's time, the thinking of
the reality-challenged had not only expanded to take over the minds
of Trek's heroes, but also of its creators and its fans. Roddenberry's
"vision of humanity's positive future" not only causes Picard and his
contemporaries to think of Kirk and his as dinosaurs, it also has the
same effect on many of the viewers.
Cory C. Albrecht
>When the Reliant was first shown, it was presented as a War Ship that
>had been built because of the Borg threat. As if the idea of a War
>Ship was something new to the Federation. By the time Galaxy class
>ships where built, I guess it was a forgotten idea.
The Reliant was Captain Terrell's ship in "The Wrath Of Khan" which was a Kirk
era movie. IOW, Nobody knew about the Borg then yet so it couldn't have been
built to cunte rthat threat.
Or did you mean the Defiant?
--
Cory Albrecht
http://cory.doesntexist.com/
"Star Trekkin' across the universe!
Always going forward 'cause we can't find reverse!"
Wouter Valentijn
"DevilsPGD" <lalala...@crazyhat.net> schreef in bericht
news:%%ukc.3482095$iA2.4...@news.easynews.com...
I think that was the other way arround.
The Borg already knew about the Federation. Just watch 'The Neutral Zone'.
Big clue that they were there.
Christoph *Grisu* Binder
In article news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0404300245120.9113@seds, Mike Dicenso
<mdic...@seds.org> wrote:
> In what mix? The E-D was long gone by the time of the Dominion
> War, and Picard and crew could only have been involved by going in
> on the E-E. -Mike
You are right, but where has the E-E been in the ... or all the other
Sovereign class starships (at least one other starship from this class
is known by name - the Sovereign because the class got its name from
her).
Okay the real problems with the Dominion started around stardate
50814.2 (Episode 'Call to Arms', DS9 5.26, Prod-Nr. 524; stardate taken
from episode DS9 5.22 'Children of Time', Prod-Nr. 520)
First Contact took place at stardate 50893.5 (aproximatly one month
after Sisko and all the Starfleet personnel abandoned DS9 because of
the Dominion-Cardassian alliance.
So after some weeks of repair in a dry-dock they could have
participated in the war, but we do know nothing about it - at least I
don't.
Grisu
--
Good and bad is tricky. I ain't too certain about where people stand.
P'raps what matters is which way you face.
(The witch Esme 'Granny' Watherwax; Terry Pratchett - Witches Abroad)
GeneK
"Mike Dicenso" <mdic...@seds.org> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0404300245120.9113@seds...
>
> In what mix? The E-D was long gone by the time of the Dominion War, and
> Picard and crew could only have been involved by going in on the E-E.
Oops, you're right. I guess that tells you how much attention I've paid to
Trek since TNG went off the air.
Troy Heagy
> The first Galaxy class to face the Jem'Hadar left her nonessential personnel
> at DS9 before heading into battle, if I recall correctly, but kept the
> saucer on, I suppose because of firepower and other needs....
...and was a sitting duck for the swarms of Jem'Hadar. I'd rather
sacrifice firepower for more maneuverability if I was going against
the Dominion.
(Aside: I doubt you lose any firepower. The saucer section has almost
nothing worth keeping in battle.)
Troy Heagy
Actually if you watch the effects closely, there's no consistency. On
one hand we see the Galaxy ship getting pounded from all sides without
effect. 30 minutes later, a Galaxy blows up after just one phaser
strike. They went for drama rather than reality.
Dmac
DMac
Troy Heagy
No. You have the same number of phaser banks on the top of the battle
section. Eliminating the saucer section sacrifices virtually nothing.
Troy
David Johnston
wrote:
>
>
>No. You have the same number of phaser banks on the top of the battle
>section. Eliminating the saucer section sacrifices virtually nothing.
But it also contributes virtually nothing. Starfleet ships are not
going to outmanuever ships less than a third their size, saucer or no
saucer.
Dmac
... we also have to take into account that StarFleet has the best pilots
ever, so we don't need to worry about manouverability
Captain Infinity
Dmac is about to speak:
>>>No. You have the same number of phaser banks on the top of the battle
>>>section. Eliminating the saucer section sacrifices virtually nothing.
>>
>> But it also contributes virtually nothing. Starfleet ships are not
>> going to outmanuever ships less than a third their size, saucer or no
>> saucer.
>
>... we also have to take into account that StarFleet has the best pilots
> ever, so we don't need to worry about manouverability
Plus Starfleet is the "star" of the show, so, you know, duh.
**
Captain Infinity
...it's 10:00 ...do you know where your pants are?
Troy Heagy
> hondain...@yahoo.com (Troy Heagy)
> >No. You have the same number of phaser banks on the top of the battle
> >section. Eliminating the saucer section sacrifices virtually nothing.
>
> But it also contributes virtually nothing.
No saucer = less mass = tighter turning radius = better results in fights
Troy (who wonders why he has to spell out what should be obvious)
Troy Heagy
> On 29 Apr 2004 10:54:10 -0700, hondainsightful@yahoo.
> >"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in
> >> "Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> >> > *Which implies the battle & saucer configurations were poorly
> >> > engineered.* What's the point of having a battle configuration if the
> >> > Feds can't use it in the Dominion War?
> >>
> >> Because the E-D was designed for service as a Federation "ambassadorial
> >> flagship" in "one big happy galaxy." That such a vessel was considered
> >> the most powerful ship in the fleet was yet another indication of how
> >> utterly unprepared the "not military" incarnation of Starfleet was to wage
> >> an all-out war for survival.
> >>
> >> GeneK
> >
> >
> >
> >Um yeah.... still haven't heard a legitimate reason for the battle
> >config. If not for fighting Jem'Hadar during wartime, then for what
> >purpose does it serve?
>
> plain a bad idea to abandon most of your crew during a battle
> and leave them lying around as helpless immobile victims.
Which is what I originally said:
>"Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>*Which implies the battle & saucer configurations were poorly engineered.*
We could have saved a lot of time if you had just said, "I agree" or "Yes."
Troy
David Johnston
wrote:
>rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
>> hondain...@yahoo.com (Troy Heagy)
>> >No. You have the same number of phaser banks on the top of the battle
>> >section. Eliminating the saucer section sacrifices virtually nothing.
>>
>> But it also contributes virtually nothing.
>
>
>
>
>No saucer = less mass = tighter turning radius = better results in fights
Lack of blind spots=no real need to turn=no need for less mass
Richard R. Hershberger
That's not necessarily unrealistic. Consider the fate of the HMS
Hood. Without the lucky shot it might well have taken a beating and
kept on fighting.
fruitbat
> On 5 May 2004 08:39:22 -0700, hondain...@yahoo.com (Troy Heagy)
> wrote:
> >
> > No saucer = less mass = tighter turning radius = better results in
> > fights
>
> Lack of blind spots=no real need to turn=no need for less mass
I can think of a few reasons turning and maneuverability might be
important:
- thrust/propulsion not equal in every direction
- weapon availability (e.g. photon torpedo tubes?)
- protect weak shields/hull/whatever from enemy fire
- evasion of enemy fire (this is a MAJOR one, it seems to me)
Jeff
TIT
<Infi...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Eenie Meenie Chili Beanie
>Dmac is about to speak:
>
>>>>No. You have the same number of phaser banks on the top of the battle
>>>>section. Eliminating the saucer section sacrifices virtually nothing.
>>>
>>> But it also contributes virtually nothing. Starfleet ships are not
>>> going to outmanuever ships less than a third their size, saucer or no
>>> saucer.
>>
>>... we also have to take into account that StarFleet has the best pilots
>> ever, so we don't need to worry about manouverability
>
>Plus Starfleet is the "star" of the show, so, you know, duh.
>
>
My guess is that Star Fleet is afraid the saucer section will time
warp back to Earth's past and start up a whole new slew of UFO
sightings.
TIT
David Johnston
wrote:
>On 5/5/2004, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> On 5 May 2004 08:39:22 -0700, hondain...@yahoo.com (Troy Heagy)
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > No saucer = less mass = tighter turning radius = better results in
>> > fights
>>
>> Lack of blind spots=no real need to turn=no need for less mass
>
>I can think of a few reasons turning and maneuverability might be
>important:
>
>- thrust/propulsion not equal in every direction
Hardly matters.
>- weapon availability (e.g. photon torpedo tubes?)
Since photorps have demonstrated a considerable ability to
manuever that isn't really an issue.
>- protect weak shields/hull/whatever from enemy fire
>- evasion of enemy fire (this is a MAJOR one, it seems to me)
Waste of time. With or without saucers, Federation heavy cruisers
can't evade worth a damn. And of course you leave your off duty
crew as totally vulnerable targets for a foe manueverable enough to
run rings around you.
Timo S Saloniemi
>In TNG "Encounter at Farpoint" it was established that the Galaxy
>class starship could remove the saucer and become a powerful weapon:
>less mass = more maneuverable. And yet in the DS9 Dominion War we see
>dozens of galaxy class ships entering battle with their massive
>saucers still attached. Wouldn't it make more sense to enter the war
>*without* the saucer (leave the saucers orbiting Earth or Vulcan in
>dry dock)?????
Seems that the logic of "BoBW" holds here. Riker and Worf argue about
saucer separation there, voting down Shelby since supposedly the
"added impulse power" of the saucer actually makes the ship *more*
battleworthy, not less so.
Starfleet seems to have misjudged originally when creating the
"regular separation" function. It seems to be of no real tactical
worth, and definitely isn't the preferred way to prepare in battle
any more after a decade of operational experiences.
>Having the saucer installed crippled their maneuverability. No wonder
>the Fed lost so many ships to tiny, tight-turning Jem'Hadar. Very
>poor tactics IMHO.
OTOH, one wonders how much maneuverability really means. Starfleet starship
phasers consistently display a 100% hit rate against even the most
maneuverable targets, including Jemmie bugships. Even the nimble Defiant
could not avoid any of the blasts delivered by the Lakota in the
blue-on-blue fight of "Paradise Lost". And generally, these hits are scored
by *saucer* phasers specifically. Seems like a good idea to haul those
platters along...
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>In article <abf84c3c.04042...@posting.google.com>, Troy
>Heagy <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> less mass = more maneuverable.
>Even in space?
Even in space. Although gravity goes away, inertia does not.
Whether any of this is true in Trek is another matter entirely. Trek
has artificial gravity and antigravity, and Trek starships can clearly
circumvent Newton's laws of motion. We have seen the biggest starships
making aerobatic maneuvers that are just as impressive as those made by
the tiniest spacecraft...
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>My theory is that The Powers That Be thought the whole concept of the
>saucer section detaching from the rest of the ship looked good on
>paper, but when it actually came to showing it in action, it looked so
>ludicrous, that TPTB decided to forget all about that nifty little
>"feature".
>
>Was that "feature" ever even *mentioned* after TNG S1?
It played a major part in the S3/4 Borg story "Best of Both Worlds",
and was used, sort of, in the movie "Generations". That's pretty much
it, though.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>The only thing about the design that seems illogical to me is if the saucer
>is intended to be used to evac families and noncombatants in case of attack
>why wouldn't the saucer have some limited emergency warp engine capacity?
>Nothing spectacular but just fast enough to get it out of a battle area
>while the stardrive section could cover it's retreat if necessary.
Then again, we never heard anybody say the saucer did *not* have warp drive.
In "Encounter at Farpoint", the saucer detaches at high warp speed,
and at least is not torn to pieces. Later we see that she has somehow
reached Deneb IV on her own, without the help of the engines of the
stardrive section.
In "Arsenal of Freedom", the saucer sets out for an interstellar journey
in order to evacuate the innocent. Nobody suggests calling for help,
towships, rendezvous, anything like that. It would be a dull trip at
sublight speeds (although time dilation would probably make the multi-year
or multi-decade trip quite doable from the crew's point of view).
It seems to me the saucer was in fact equipped for faster-than-light
movement, either with inboard warp engines or then with some completely
different FTL technology.
Timo Saloniemi
Troy Heagy
> On 5 May 2004 08:39:22 -0700, hondain...@yahoo.com (Troy Heagy)
> wrote:
>
> >rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
> >> hondain...@yahoo.com (Troy Heagy)
> >> >No. You have the same number of phaser banks on the top of the battle
> >> >section. Eliminating the saucer section sacrifices virtually nothing.
> >>
> >> But it also contributes virtually nothing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >No saucer = less mass = tighter turning radius = better results in fights
>
> Lack of blind spots=no real need to turn=no need for less mass
No need to turn????? You can't be serious. Watch the footage of the
Dominion War, and it's obvious why turning to face the enemy is
necessary.
As for mass, that's what made the Japanese Zero such a great fighter.
It was made of lightweight wood, and could fly circles around the
heavy American planes.
Same principle applies in turning a starship. Less mass = better
turning.
Elvis Gump
wrote on 05/06/2004 10:37 AM:
> In article <BCB41231.26ED8%elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> Elvis Gump
> <elvi...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> writes:
>
>> The only thing about the design that seems illogical to me is if the saucer
>> is intended to be used to evac families and noncombatants in case of attack
>> why wouldn't the saucer have some limited emergency warp engine capacity?
>> Nothing spectacular but just fast enough to get it out of a battle area
>> while the stardrive section could cover it's retreat if necessary.
>
> Then again, we never heard anybody say the saucer did *not* have warp drive.
But then again, it would be something that would come up when the main warp
drive in the stardrive went out. If it were there at least once in all the
time the main drive was out we'd surely have heard someone bring the back-up
on-line. Thing is, the ship is illogical in many ways so they can quickly
create jeopardy without having to write that multiple layers of back-up
systems are gone.
> In "Encounter at Farpoint", the saucer detaches at high warp speed,
> and at least is not torn to pieces. Later we see that she has somehow
> reached Deneb IV on her own, without the help of the engines of the
> stardrive section.
Yes, but remember in "Brothers" when Picard decides on saucer separation to
take back command of the ship from Soong-zombied Data after lil' Wesley's
exclamation about them being at warp 9.5?
Picard and Geordi discuss that the saucer section should drop out of warp in
something like two minutes, supposedly as the warp field collapses at which
time they'll swing around and retrieve it.
This gives the idea that the warp field is wrapping around the ship like a
magnetic bubble in some way; a fuzzy field of energy that has to dissipate
like smoke. Perhaps in EaFP the saucer "coasted" in warp much of the way
into the system and got the remaining part of the way on full impulse?
I can't remember my astronomy but isn't our solar system a light-day roughly
from one side of Pluto's orbit to the other? Then at full impulse we're
talking like say 4 or 5 hours to pass Pluto to get to Earth from out there
at impulse or say at Warp 1 (speed of light? Well then what's full impulse?
0.95% SOL?) it's still 20 minutes from Mars to Earth.
Most of the time I think the writers were just quite arbitrary about writing
how long things take or how hard and fast any of this stuff was.
> In "Arsenal of Freedom", the saucer sets out for an interstellar journey
> in order to evacuate the innocent. Nobody suggests calling for help,
> towships, rendezvous, anything like that. It would be a dull trip at
> sublight speeds (although time dilation would probably make the multi-year
> or multi-decade trip quite doable from the crew's point of view).
Well here's another odd thing to think about. Subspace radio. If it's
sending messages through the same 'fabric' of the Universe that the ship
warps through, then WITHOUT warp drive how does the sub-space radio work? It
would seem like however it sends and receives signals through the
voodoo-ether of subspace would in someway require a warp field, so the
warp-drive-less saucer might SOOL on FTL messages.
The only way it makes sense is if there are a fleet of coast guard like FTL
tugs that are dispatched to tow back ships or saucers that have become
STL-stranded. Someplace there's a bunch of CALTRANS like rooms on various
Starbases where a board lights up on an automated signal from a starship
that separates and tugs head out, turning back only if they get an all-clear
update.
> It seems to me the saucer was in fact equipped for faster-than-light
> movement, either with inboard warp engines or then with some completely
> different FTL technology.
>
> Timo Saloniemi
I think it's logical that it SHOULD be, but I think from the writers point
of view it isn't and they've just glossed over it a few too many times that
it ever came up.
--
Ignorance must certainly be bliss or there wouldn't be so many people so
resolutely pursuing it.
Timo S Saloniemi
>> Half the phaser banks are also in the saucer section; it was probably a
>> case of sacrificing maneuvrability for weapons power.
>So Tasha Yar's comment that, "Without the saucer section the
>Enterprise becomes a very powerful battleship" was a load of crap.
It was probably the Starfleet party line before they found out that
it was a load of crap, though.
>IMHO I find it annoying when the producers introduce a concept
>(removable sacuer = ultra-powerful battleship) and then just totally
>drop it. We fans aren't stupid. We remember.
Then again, it could be Starfleet who was stupid. Saucer reattaching is
a nifty and impressive-looking technology, and all good and well for a
ship whose mission during the first seasons consisted of being impressive-
looking, but it might have proven useless in practice when serious
military conflicts arose.
It's not as if the real world wouldn't be replete with examples. Naval
warfare would be the closest analogy, of course, and we have a nice
collection of big ships that were designed all wrong from the very
concept on. These were very impressive in peacetime but spelled defeat
or at least financial-logistic disaster when deployed for war.
Timo Saloniemi
GeneK
> Starfleet seems to have misjudged originally when creating the
> "regular separation" function. It seems to be of no real tactical
> worth, and definitely isn't the preferred way to prepare in battle
> any more after a decade of operational experiences.
Perhaps the true tactical advantage of saucer sep is that the CO
of the drive section isn't constantly thinking about the potential
noncombatant casualties from every hit the saucer section takes
when the ship is whole and can therefore attempt riskier tactical
moves. If the ship is being dispatched into combat from a base,
as would be more likely when combat is anticipated in a war rather
than a surprise event on a peaceful mission, the same advantage
could be obtained by just offloading the noncombatants who would
normally be aboard the saucer before departing.
Timo S Saloniemi
>Um yeah.... still haven't heard a legitimate reason for the battle
>config. If not for fighting Jem'Hadar during wartime, then for what
>purpose does it serve?
I guess "looking militant" would be enough for most purposes. That's
what most of the warships of the 1970s were built for, anyway. Their
odds of survival if the cold war turned hot were not good enough to
justify building them, but they were *very* good for posturing.
Any weapon system not built *in* war is likely to be ineffective
in action; yet it might look very good in paper, or sailing around
in peacetime. The Galaxy was probably built to support a doctrine
that did not really include the possibility of a "real" war, one
where the Feds wouldn't have total superiority from the beginning
to the neat and tidy end.
Timo Saloniemi
GeneK
> So Tasha Yar's comment that, "Without the saucer section the
> Enterprise becomes a very powerful battleship" was a load of crap.
IIRC, what she actually said was "when freed of its bulk the Enterprise
becomes a very powerful battleship."
Perhaps Tasha's idea of "bulk" was all those noncombatants whose
safety and security she would otherwise have to be concerned
about, and what she really meant but knew better than to say was,
"becomes a very powerful battleship as opposed to the child-
laden Disney cruiseliner it usually is."
Greg
ship Scotty had been in when it crashed into the Dyson sphere could fly
circles around the Ent-D at impulse speeds
--
___________________________________________________________________
Greg Okerlund
BS Computer Science
http://www.khaaan.com/
Mike Dicenso
On Thu, 6 May 2004, GeneK wrote:
> "Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>
> > So Tasha Yar's comment that, "Without the saucer section the
> > Enterprise becomes a very powerful battleship" was a load of crap.
>
> IIRC, what she actually said was "when freed of its bulk the Enterprise
> becomes a very powerful battleship."
>
> Perhaps Tasha's idea of "bulk" was all those noncombatants whose
> safety and security she would otherwise have to be concerned
> about, and what she really meant but knew better than to say was,
> "becomes a very powerful battleship as opposed to the child-
> laden Disney cruiseliner it usually is."
Actually you're both a bit wrong; the line of dialouge belongs to Worf in
"Heart of Glory". The lines are as follows:
Korris: "We have heard this can separate in time of battle."
Worf: "Yes. When relieved of it's bulk, the Enterprises becomes an
exceptional weapon."
-Mike
GeneK
"Mike Dicenso" <mdic...@seds.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0405061436030.19577@seds...
> Actually you're both a bit wrong; the line of dialouge belongs to Worf in
> "Heart of Glory". The lines are as follows:
>
> Korris: "We have heard this can separate in time of battle."
>
> Worf: "Yes. When relieved of it's bulk, the Enterprises becomes an
> exceptional weapon."
Thanks for the correction. But I think the same reasoning still applies
to an "exceptional weapon." And it seems to me that Worf would be
even more likely than Tasha to consider the noncombatants "bulk" in
a combat situation. :)
GeneK
Reed Riddle
hondain...@yahoo.com (Troy Heagy) wrote:
> rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in message
> news:<40992c89....@news.telusplanet.net>...
> > On 5 May 2004 08:39:22 -0700, hondain...@yahoo.com (Troy Heagy)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
> > >> hondain...@yahoo.com (Troy Heagy)
> > >> >No. You have the same number of phaser banks on the top of the battle
> > >> >section. Eliminating the saucer section sacrifices virtually nothing.
> > >>
> > >> But it also contributes virtually nothing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >No saucer = less mass = tighter turning radius = better results in fights
> >
> > Lack of blind spots=no real need to turn=no need for less mass
>
>
>
> No need to turn????? You can't be serious. Watch the footage of the
> Dominion War, and it's obvious why turning to face the enemy is
> necessary.
>
> As for mass, that's what made the Japanese Zero such a great fighter.
> It was made of lightweight wood, and could fly circles around the
> heavy American planes.
The Zero was made of metal, not wood. In fact, it was made using the
same manufacturing principles that were developed later in the war by
America. The maneuverability of the Zero was due to the design
philosophy, not just because it was lighter.
> Same principle applies in turning a starship. Less mass = better
> turning.
No, less mass = better turning for equally designed things. If the
designs are different, then that isn't necessarily true. Compare equal
weight planes from WW2 and today, and see which turns better.
Reed
--
Dr. Reed L. Riddle
Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations
Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy
Email: drriddle "at" qwest.net
Homepage: http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/
"This life has been a test. If this had been an actual life, you would have
received instructions on where to go and what to do."
Angela Chase, "My so-called life"
Remove "DAMN SPAM" from my email address to reply.....
Troy Heagy
> designs are different, then that isn't necessarily true. Compare equal
> weight planes from WW2 and today, and see which turns better.
WW2 planes turn better. They move slower, but they have a tighter
radius.
And yes, I was talking about equals. A saucer-equipped Galaxy will
not turn as tightly as a saucer-less Galaxy.
Troy
Timo S Saloniemi
>On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, GeneK wrote:
>> Well, *all* the Galaxy Class vessels kept their saucers on, so presumably
>> (at least within canon) there must have been some rationale for it. OTOH,
>> thinking back, it doesn't seem to me that the Galaxies proved to be
>> especially effective in the Dominion war.
>Tell that to the Galor that got it's ass chewed up by a GCS in "Sacrifice
>of Angels", or the U.S.S. Galaxy that took a near-point blank hit from a
>Cardassian ODP, and still kept going while other ships got totally
>trashed.
OTOH, no Federation vessel seemed to score well in the combat scenes.
Some Jem'Hadar bugs were blown up, generally by the Defiant or the Klingon
BoPs, but the general trend was that the good guys kept firing but didn't
achieve visible results.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:14:09 GMT, DevilsPGD
><lalala...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>In message <<7960d3ee.04042...@posting.google.com>>
>>dfre...@yahoo.com (Doug Freyburger) did ramble:
>>>When the Reliant was first shown, it was presented as a War Ship that
>>>had been built because of the Borg threat. As if the idea of a War
>>>Ship was something new to the Federation. By the time Galaxy class
>>>ships where built, I guess it was a forgotten idea.
>>I'm a bit confused, the borg threat didn't exist (or rather, wasn't
>>known) until after the Galaxy class Enterprise was out flying around and
>>Q introduced them.
>>
>>Or am I misunderstanding your statement?
>
>Apparently. The Galaxy class came before the Reliant during the
>period when the Federation was so smugly confident of their
>invulnerability that they didn't bother to build effective combat
>vessels.
Uh, it would help clear things if we spoke of the Defiant here
(the nifty anti-Borg ship from DS9), not the Reliant (the nifty
anti-Kirk ship flown by Khan in ST2).
>There's an historical precedent for that of course. In the
>period between the end of the Napoleonic wars and accession
>of Jacky Fisher as First Lord of the Admiralty, the British navy
>totally went to hell because they had a long period of peace and
>they forgot that their primary mission was not to look pretty.
OTOH, the Feds didn't have a long period of peace. They had
wars galore. The Cardassians, the Tholians, the Tzenkethi, the
Talarians, possibly a few others as well. A period of triumphant
wars can be even *more* detrimental to a military than a period of
peace!
At least one gets to test-fire one's weapons in a war, no matter
how lopsided and misleading the war itself is. The British in
post-Napoleonic years had no good chance to discover that their
naval artillery shells for decade upon decade were an utter disaster,
completely useless in combat - never exploding at target, but quite
possibly exploding within the firing barrel!
>The Galaxy class was badly designed, proving consistently inferior
>in combat with comparably advanced vessels, and if Picard and
>Riker were their best and brightest, they weren't exactly
>commanded capably either.
Then again, perhaps the Galaxy wasn't a combatant yet other ships
in the fleet were? One wouldn't judge the French navy of the sixties
by analyzing the combat engagements of the Calypso...
Timo Saloniemi