NCC-1701-C and timeline continuity (YE spoilers?)
Brian Kendig
The NCC-1701-C came upon a Klingon outpost that was being attacked by
Romulans. In defending it, it was hit by a barrage of torpedoes that
created a pseudo-wormhole around it, pulling it twenty-two years into
the future and meanwhile leaving the Klingons to fend for themselves.
Meanwhile, the Klingon outpost was destroyed. No record was made of
the Federation starship's intervention, of course.
Over the ensuing two decades, the Klingon Empire grew in power,
becoming string enough to crush the UUnited Federation of Planets.
Finally the NCC-1701-C emerges from its pseudowormhole in the same
region of space as the NCC-1701-D. It is repaired (and rearmed?), and
sent back through the rift.
Upon returning, its actions are somehow enough to influence the
Klingons to consider a treaty with the UFP. The rest, as they say, is
history.
Major incongruity here: How is it that the Ambassador-class
Enterprise's nobility was enough to merit praise from the Klingons,
yet not enough for the Klingons to convey its action on to the
Federation? I'd think that something that pivotal would not go
unnoticed. The official Starfleet record lists the 1701-C as sending
a distress call to Starbase 67 on Stardate 3/0006.30 and never being
seen nor heard from again, disappearing without a trace. Wouldn't
there have been record of a Klingon base in that area, or at least
traces of wreckage there once a rescue team investigated?
In twenty years, I would have hoped that something would have been
mentioned about the 1701-C...
Next point: Tasha Yar. Her presence is not really incongruous. She
gets an assignment aboard the Galaxy-class Enterprise and serves until
the wormhole incident, at which time she returns on the
Ambassador-class Enterprise and dies in its service. In the new
timeline she gets an assignment several years later aboard the
Galaxy-class Enterprise, and is summarily destroyed by Armus on Vagra
2.
The question is not how she ends up in the new timeline; that's
obvious. The question is why she would be so concerned with her own
death that she would go back in history to alter the future into one
where she is killed. I suppose romance can do that to you...
It's an interesting thought that the Klingon outpost in question may
well have been the one that Worf and his family were aboard. Consider
the Romulans boarding the station and terrorizing its occupants until
all were either evacuated or dead.
I suppose if only a handful of Klingons were able to escape but could
not identify the Federation starship responsible for their salvation,
that might explain the discrepancies. (But not *well*.)
And I wonder why Picard did not order an emergency saucer separation
to serve as a decoy for the Klingons and to at least offer the crew a
chance for survival? (Especially after the seals on the radioactive
core of the ship were weakened.)
On the class of the 1701-C: Perhaps the class name is officially
"Ambassador", but the first ship of that class was the "Alaska"? This
would explain that discrepancy. (Typically classes are named after
the first ships in them, e. g. Constellation, Excelsior; exceptions
are such as the Galaxy class.)
One last thought: now I'd *love* to see the 1701-B mentioned
somewhere!
<< Brian >>
--
| Brian S. Kendig \ Macintosh | Engineering, | bskendig |
| Computer Engineering |\ Thought | USS Enterprise | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU
| Princeton University |_\ Police | -= NCC-1701-D =- | @PUCC.BITNET |
| Systems Engineering, NASA Space Station Freedom / General Electric WP3 |
William December Starr
In article <14...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> [in rec.arts.startrek],
bske...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) said:
> Meanwhile, the Klingon outpost was destroyed. No record was made of
> the Federation starship's intervention, of course.
Can't tell whether that "of course" is meant sarcastically or not. If
it is, it's misplaced. If the Romulans did a good enough job of
reducing the evidence to plasma then it's not surprising that no one
in the Twenty Years War universe (expect a few Romulans) knew that the
1701-C had been present at all.
> Over the ensuing two decades, the Klingon Empire grew in power,
> becoming string enough to crush the UUnited Federation of Planets.
No, over the next two decades, the Feds and the Klingons fought a war
which, after twenty years, the Klingons were on the verge of winning.
That doesn't imply that the K's "grew in power" -- maybe they _always_
had a slight (say, 51/49) edge over the Feds.
> How is it that the Enterprise C's nobility was enough to merit
> praise from the Klingons, yet not enough for the Klingons to convey
> its action on to the Federation?... The official Starfleet record
> lists the 1701-C as sending a distress call to Starbase 67 on Stardate
> 3/0006.30 and never being seen nor heard from again, disappearing
> without a trace.
What official Starfleet record is that? I've never heard that "fact"
quoted canonically, that is, on the air. As far as I can tell, we the
viewers don't have the slightest damn idea _what_ happened in "our"
TNG timeline 22 years, three months and four days ago. For all we
know, the NCC-1701-C's heroic sacrifice is a celebrated piece of
Starfleet lore, with only one minor data point about it -- the
identity of her Tactical Officer during the final combat -- not common
knowledge.
> The question is not how Yar ends up in the new timeline; that's
> obvious. The question is why she would be so concerned with her own
> death that she would go back in history to alter the future into one
> where she is killed. I suppose romance can do that to you...
Romance, schmomance. She knew that she'd cease to exist in the "now"
if the 1701-C's mission was successful. The only way she had anything
to lose, as Picard pointed out to her, was if the C failed and
therefore the timeline was not repaired. In that case, she'd continue
to serve on the D battlewagon for as long as it lasted. Balanced
against that was her belief (probably correct) that by being on the C
when it returned to its combatus interruptus, she might make the
differnece between success and failure in its mission. She wore a
Starfleet uniform, and she saw it as her duty to serve in the best way
possible, even at the cost of her life. The needs of the many (forty
billion of them) outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.
> And I wonder why Picard did not order an emergency saucer separation
> to serve as a decoy for the Klingons and to at least offer the crew a
> chance for survival?
What makes you think that that 1701-D's saucer can separate at all?
Remember, our D was designed as a ship of peace. The separation
capability is present (a) to help save the civilians/families and
(b) make the remaining section of the ship a leaner/meaner fighting
machine. The Battleship D didn't carry any civilians or families
(okay, maybe a few civilian Arrogant Federation Experts, but not
enough to justify a cut-along-the-dotted-line starship) and because of
its single function (to kick ass that no man has kicked before) was in
its entirety designed to be a single-unit fighting machine.
--
William December Starr <wds...@athena.mit.edu>
Brian D Rogerson
(William December Starr) writes:
> In article <14...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> [in rec.arts.startrek],
> bske...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) said:
>
> She [Tasha] wore a
> Starfleet uniform, and she saw it as her duty to serve in the best way
> possible, even at the cost of her life. The needs of the many (forty
> billion of them) outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.
I'm glad to see someone else thought of this phrase. It came to my mind when
first reading the spoilers about Picard agreeing to let the "C" go back when it
could help immensely in the time of the "D". (Then it turned out that one ship
"now" would be rather superfluous....)
>> And I wonder why Picard did not order an emergency saucer separation
>> to serve as a decoy for the Klingons and to at least offer the crew a
>> chance for survival?
>
> What makes you think that that 1701-D's saucer can separate at all?
> Remember, our D was designed as a ship of peace. The separation
> capability is present (a) to help save the civilians/families and
> (b) make the remaining section of the ship a leaner/meaner fighting
> machine. The Battleship D didn't carry any civilians or families
> (okay, maybe a few civilian Arrogant Federation Experts, but not
> enough to justify a cut-along-the-dotted-line starship) and because of
> its single function (to kick ass that no man has kicked before) was in
> its entirety designed to be a single-unit fighting machine.
Not to mention, (so why am I?) the machinery that powers the
mainstream-D saucer
and its engines, and the machinery for the separation procedure, both take up
space that could be better served by removing bulk or by packing in more
weapons.
Also, I believe that one other poster mentioned that while ditching the saucer
would make a more maneuverable "battle bridge," the saucer would be a sitting
duck and the battle bridge would lose the 360-degree phaser placement.
Even if the saucer WAS separable, let's examine the scenario:
The "C" has been hit and Garrett is dead. The "D" has hit the Klingon vessel
three (four? five?) times head-on, with no effect. The Klingon vessel has
cloaked and could be lurking around anywhere. Picard theoretically COULD order
separation, but separation would take at least 30 seconds (probably four times
that much) plus the delay time for Picard et al to get to the Battle
Bridge. The Klingon vessel could de-cloak at any time and begin firing again.
And if the Klingon vessel (or either of the other two which showed up shortly)
fired on the junction point between the two halves at the time of separation,
it would be disastrous. (I would assume that this is the most vulnerable part
of the ship.)
If the separation is successful, Picard is left with a smaller, more
maneuverable
Battle Bridge with less firepower; and a smaller, MUCH less
maneuverable, sitting
duck--er, saucer, also with less power, and presumably extremely sluggish.
Now Picard must coordinate the attacks by the two ships, which is more
difficult
than coordinating just the one.
Look, if the Federation can't afford to use their technology to make
nicer doors
(SWISH) it is highly unlikely that they would bother developing separation
technology. (I heard a rumor that separation has been available since the
original (1701) Enterprise. Even in this case, I believe that the Federation
would be more concerned with keeping their ships in one piece during wartime!)
Brian D. Rogerson
Brian Kendig
>In article <1990Feb25.1...@athena.mit.edu>, wds...@athena.mit.edu
>(William December Starr) writes:
>
>> In article <14...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> [in rec.arts.startrek],
>> bske...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) said:
>>
>> She [Tasha] wore a
>> Starfleet uniform, and she saw it as her duty to serve in the best way
>> possible, even at the cost of her life. The needs of the many (forty
>> billion of them) outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.
I DID NOT WRITE THAT. Please keep you attributions straight.
If Tasha were supposed to be so concerned with moral justice, then why
would the writers have created a romance between her and Lieutenant
Castillo, and why would she have been so preoccupied with thoughts of
her own demise? Sure, the moral obligation figures into it a little
bit, but mainly (a) Tasha had fallen in love with the Lieutenant, and
(b) she would otherwise have faced a meaningless death. (This second
bit of logic is flawed; by correcting the frames to create the
`peaceful' universe, she actually was ensuring that her meaningless
death would take place. But I'm not *about* to touch THAT subject
with a ten-foot pole.)
>>> And I wonder why Picard did not order an emergency saucer separation
>>> to serve as a decoy for the Klingons and to at least offer the crew a
>>> chance for survival?
(I wrote that.)
>> What makes you think that that 1701-D's saucer can separate at all?
>> Remember, our D was designed as a ship of peace. The separation
>> capability is present (a) to help save the civilians/families and
>> (b) make the remaining section of the ship a leaner/meaner fighting
>> machine. The Battleship D didn't carry any civilians or families
>> (okay, maybe a few civilian Arrogant Federation Experts, but not
>> enough to justify a cut-along-the-dotted-line starship) and because of
>> its single function (to kick ass that no man has kicked before) was in
>> its entirety designed to be a single-unit fighting machine.
The battleship looked identical to the familiar 1701-D (except for
interior decorating, of course). I seem to remember as well a shot of
the underside of the ship that clearly showed the seam between the
hull and stardrive sections (but this may have been in the Real (!)
part of the show or even the credits, so don't hold me to that.)
The original Enterprise had a separable saucer. I assume that it
would be standard equipment on all large-grade starships. Why?
Because if your hull is trashed, or your main power core is about to
blow, or even if you just need to create a diversion, you can launch
the saucer and take valuable crew to safety while the hull section
fights on.
(For those of you who are about to flame me: The separable stardrive
section is clearly marked in several blueprints for the Enterprise
NCC-1701 in an old Officer's Manual somewhere, and Captain Kirk even
mentioned it in one episode (I don't know which; it was named a while
ago here on the Net).
Ken Tindle
I believe the saucer might be present so Tasha could brag that the Ent-D
was "capable of transporting over 6,000 troops." It wouldn't have to separate
if you plan on building a warship.
This implies you still need troops for a twenty-fourth century war, but I
suppose it is a possibility.
I liked Picard's incredulous reaction to Guinan's comment about children
on the ship, too.
--------------------------\ /-----------------------------------------------
INTERNET:tin...@ms.uky.edu | "Could you please continue the petty bickering?
BITNET: tin...@ukma.bitnet | I find it most intriguing." --- Data,
Ken Tindle - Lexington, KY | Star Trek, The Next Generation, "Haven"
--------------------------/ \-----------------------------------------------
Chuan Chee
In article <14...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> bske...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Okay, lemme puzzle this one out.
>And I wonder why Picard did not order an emergency saucer separation
>to serve as a decoy for the Klingons and to at least offer the crew a
>chance for survival? (Especially after the seals on the radioactive
>core of the ship were weakened.)
>
If you mean that the saucer section would separate with no people
aboard to act as a decoy, then consider:
(1) It takes time to move everyone from the saucer to the secondary
hull - so you wouldn't do that in the presence of 3 Klingon
ships while protecting Enterprise-C.
(2) Picard didn't know exactly when and how many ships would appear.
(3) They would need the special phaser (can't remember the name) on
the saucer section to defend themselves.
(4) Saucer separations make more sense when there are family aboard
(which there wasn't in the alternate timeline). Probably the
sum of the 2 parts are stronger when attached.
(5) To separate after engineering was going to explode would take
too much time and they had to protect Ent-C. They only had
2 mins before the explosion and 52 seconds before Ent-C would
be "successful".
...Chuan Chee
ckc...@dgp.utoronto.ca (cdnnet)
ckc...@dgp.toronto.edu (internet)
ckc...@dgp.utoronto (bitnet)
Andy Nicholas
>> And I wonder why Picard did not order an emergency saucer separation
>> to serve as a decoy for the Klingons and to at least offer the crew a
>> chance for survival?
>
> What makes you think that that 1701-D's saucer can separate at all?
Because it separated in 'Encounter at Farpoint.' -- actually, I thought that
the saucer could only do sublight, so that the actual tactic would have
been to do a saucer-sever at lightspeed and then have the saucer "disappear"
at sublight (ie, sneak away) while the agressor pursued the remaining
'battlebridge' section. If I recall correctly, in 'encounter at farpoint,'
the saucer continues at warp whatever while the battlebridge turns around
to fight whatever it was that was chasing the enterprise.
But in the battle that we saw take place in TNG:YE, everyone was at sublight
already. Doing a saucer-sever would have been one of the most stupid
tactics you can imagine because it would have made the ship(s) even more
vulnerable to attack... would have just given the klingons something else
to shoot at (and destroy).
andy
--
Yeah!
William Bates
but this has to do with seperation. First, let's all recall the discussion
we had a while ago about saucer seperation- it was possible in the
Constitution class and Enterprise class (and 1701 a I imagine also) to
seperate the saucer from the hull, however, the engineering hull could not
attain warp speed after that because structural integrity was broken. The
saucer secton had five fusion generators for power, but they were not all
that powerful (ie. could not power warp generators and had limited
lifetimes) Any ship that seperates that was not specifically desgined to
(like the D) is hurting and bound for a few weeks of drydock to put it back
together. All points about non seper. are well taken, but along with those,
consider this- the saucer could be left around a planet to pound from air
to ground or for ground forces to be there while the duck shape (Uh, I mean
stardrive setion :-) could go run around after Klingons or whatever.
Obviously the saucer has it's own anti matter generators (we also decided
that the saucer must have some form of warp drive to be practical) and
could probably adequately power the phaser rings, shields, etc.
I don't know just how much phaser capacity they would be losing, but if
they lost so much that it would be a waste of time, why even design it ??
(even in the peace timeline, it IS a *battle* bridge- so it should be able
to fight fairly well) Maybe they can divert power from the phaser rings to
a whole nother set of phasers in the stardrive, esp. where they have less
inertia for the engines to sling around and no power requirements from the
saucer.
BCB
--
"..a tall ship and a star to sail her by. ...you could feel the wind at
your back, smell the sea in those days. Take away the wind and the ocean
and it's the same. The ship is yous- you can feel her. And the stars are
still there Bones." -Kirk, James T., The Ultimate Computer
wba...@bucsf.bu.edu
wba...@bass.bu.edu
eng...@buacca.bu.edu
v100...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
>>And I wonder why Picard did not order an emergency saucer separation
>>to serve as a decoy for the Klingons and to at least offer the crew a
>>chance for survival? (Especially after the seals on the radioactive
>>core of the ship were weakened.)
>>
>
> If you mean that the saucer section would separate with no people
> aboard to act as a decoy, then consider:
> (1) It takes time to move everyone from the saucer to the secondary
> hull - so you wouldn't do that in the presence of 3 Klingon
> ships while protecting Enterprise-C.
> (2) Picard didn't know exactly when and how many ships would appear.
> (3) They would need the special phaser (can't remember the name) on
> the saucer section to defend themselves.
> (4) Saucer separations make more sense when there are family aboard
> (which there wasn't in the alternate timeline). Probably the
> sum of the 2 parts are stronger when attached.
> (5) To separate after engineering was going to explode would take
> too much time and they had to protect Ent-C. They only had
> 2 mins before the explosion and 52 seconds before Ent-C would
> be "successful".
>
More to the point, I would doubt the Wartimeline 1701-D COULD seperate its
saucer! It's obviously built differently from the regular 1701-D. Notice that
the Phasers were shooting out from positions ON THE SAUCER. I would guess that
the living space of the regular 1701-D was replaced by armaments in the
wartimeline 1701-D. There would be no need for extra living space. If this
is the case, a saucer seperation would have the effect of DISARMING the ship.
==> saucer seperations are not a feature of the wartimeline 1701-D.
e
L nny
Tom Kuchar
>
>Enterprise's nobility was enough to merit praise from the Klingons,
>yet not enough for the Klingons to convey its action on to the
>Federation? I'd think that something that pivotal would not go
>unnoticed. The official Starfleet record lists the 1701-C as sending
>a distress call to Starbase 67 on Stardate 3/0006.30 and never being
If this is from the Enterprise legacy poster, you might as well burn it.
This poster has little relavance (if any) to the Star Trek universe.
The poster states that 1701-D was commissioned 3yrs after the destruction
of 1701-C. `Yesterday's Enterprise' implies a much longer period (about 15yrs)
had elapsed. Also the pictured ship for 1701-c on this poster is not the
one that appeared in `Yesterday's Enterprise'.
If it's not mentioned in TOS, TAS, TNG, or TFS, it is not part of
Star Trek history. Otherwise we are all free to make up anything we
wish and say that it is part of Trek history (which is appearantly fine
for some people).
--
Tom... | `In an insane world, the sane man must appear insane.'
Kuc...@bu-ast.bu.edu | `Where did you hear that, son?'
| `Star Trek'
| `God, I miss that show.' ---- from the movie "Serial"
Brian Kendig
>In article <1990Feb25.1...@athena.mit.edu>, wds...@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>>> And I wonder why Picard did not order an emergency saucer separation
>>> to serve as a decoy for the Klingons and to at least offer the crew a
>>> chance for survival?
PLEASE, everyone, I WROTE THAT. I HATE being misquoted. Please be
more careful in the future.
>> What makes you think that that 1701-D's saucer can separate at all?
>
>Because it separated in 'Encounter at Farpoint.'
Actually, as many people have pointed out to me already, the
'other-timeline' Enterprise was already different in that it had
neato-keen phasers near the rim on the saucer section itelf. I've
never seen that on the 'real' NCC-1701-D. Therefore, maybe the
alternate 1701-D was really physically different...
>Doing a saucer-sever would have been one of the most stupid
>tactics you can imagine because it would have made the ship(s) even more
>vulnerable to attack... would have just given the klingons something else
>to shoot at (and destroy).
Precisely! If the Klingons had one more thing to shoot at, they would
have been correspondingly less interested in the crucial escape of the
1701-C. Besides, since the 1701-D remained in one piece, the whole
thing would have been destroyed anyway when, after two more minutes,
its radioactive core detonated. Separating the saucer would have
given at least that many more crewmen and that much more equipment a
fighting chance at survival.
Can you say 'tactics'? I knew you could.
Steven Grimm
>'other-timeline' Enterprise was already different in that it had
>neato-keen phasers near the rim on the saucer section itelf. I've
>never seen that on the 'real' NCC-1701-D.
I suggest you go watch "The Survivors" again, then. All the dark grey bands
on the Enterprise -- both the large ones on the top and bottom of the saucer
section, and the smaller ones on (for instance) the sides of the nacelle
struts and the bottom of the ship -- are phaser banks, according to every
notated picture of the ship I've seen.
The only phaser bank goof they've had so far was in "Encounter At Farpoint,"
when the captain's yacht fired the energy beam.
---
" !" - Marcel Marceau
Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st
kor...@ebay.sun.com ...!sun!ebay!koreth
Cookson
>More to the point, I would doubt the Wartimeline 1701-D COULD seperate its
>saucer! It's obviously built differently from the regular 1701-D. Notice that
>the Phasers were shooting out from positions ON THE SAUCER. I would guess that
The "normal" -D has the same phasers. what's your point??
Dean
% Dean Cookson $ Anyone can be taught to sculpt %
% coo...@mbunix.mitre.org $ Michaelangleo would have had to %
% {devax, philabs, ...}!linus!mitre!cookson $ have been taught how not to. %
% Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, leave $ The same is true of great %
% employer out of it $ programmers %
--
% Dean Cookson $ Anyone can be taught to sculpt %
% coo...@mbunix.mitre.org $ Michaelangleo would have had to %
% {devax, philabs, ...}!linus!mitre!cookson $ have been taught how not to. %
% Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, leave $ The same is true of great %
% employer out of it $ programmers %
Ket M'thau
> Actually, as many people have pointed out to me already, the
> 'other-timeline' Enterprise was already different in that it had
> neato-keen phasers near the rim on the saucer section itelf. I've
> never seen that on the 'real' NCC-1701-D. Therefore, maybe the
> alternate 1701-D was really physically different...
The 360-degree phaser banks *are* on the normal 1701-D. I'm sure I've seen
them used before (what? Ship's phasers used in a regular TNG episode?) but
I can't remember when. Maybe when they destroyed the shuttle in "Skin of
Evil", or something like that. They certainly appear on the models...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- <4223...@uwovax.uwo.ca> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
V Ket M'thau >or< JHGR oo I *am* a number.
O USS Kepler (NCC 3501) __ In fact, I'm several.
+ Star Trek Toronto 4223_5403 is just one of many.
Have a Day
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Please disregard this notice -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
__ _ __ __ __ __
| | \ |\` \ | | | |\ \ | \ |\ '_| | | | | /
|__ | | | \ /\ | , |__ | | \ /\ | , /\ | \ | | | |_| |/
Ryan D Mathews
> 'other-timeline' Enterprise was already different in that it had
> neato-keen phasers near the rim on the saucer section itelf. I've
> never seen that on the 'real' NCC-1701-D. Therefore, maybe the
> alternate 1701-D was really physically different...
Umm... those phasers have always been there. See "Booby Trap", or, for
a really good demonstration, "The Arsenal of Freedom". This is just the
first real workout they've gotten.
---------- Ryan Mathews
Internet : mat...@cs.buffalo.edu
Bitnet : mathews%cs.buffalo.edu@ubvm
UUCP :{apple,cornell,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,talcott,ucbvax,uunet}!
cs.buffalo.edu!mathews
jco...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
>saucer! It's obviously built differently from the regular 1701-D. Notice that
>the Phasers were shooting out from positions ON THE SAUCER. I would guess that
>the living space of the regular 1701-D was replaced by armaments in the
>wartimeline 1701-D. There would be no need for extra living space. If this
>is the case, a saucer seperation would have the effect of DISARMING the ship.
>==> saucer seperations are not a feature of the wartimeline 1701-D.
Nope, wrongo! If you look at the peacetime Enterprise, she too has phaser
strips on the sauser section.
Hailing Frequencies Closed.
"Captain" D. Joseph Creighton
*******************************************************************************
Tom Kuchar
>In article <14...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, bske...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>(Brian Kendig) writes:
>> ...as many people have pointed out to me already, the
>> 'other-timeline' Enterprise was already different in that it had
>> neato-keen phasers near the rim on the saucer section itelf. I've
>> never seen that on the 'real' NCC-1701-D.
>
>a really good demonstration, "The Arsenal of Freedom". This is just the
>first real workout they've gotten.
>
season when the Enterprise was firing at the `fictitious' attacking
vessel.
Mique Reisch
On 27 Feb 90 19:40:39 GMT,
mat...@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Ryan D Mathews) said:
Ryan> Sender: nob...@acsu.Buffalo.EDU
Ryan> In article <14...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>,
Ryan> bske...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes:
> ...as many people have pointed out to me already, the
> 'other-timeline' Enterprise was already different in that it had
> neato-keen phasers near the rim on the saucer section itelf. I've
> never seen that on the 'real' NCC-1701-D. Therefore, maybe the
> alternate 1701-D was really physically different...
> << Brian >>
Ryan> Umm... those phasers have always been there. See "Booby Trap",
Ryan> or, for a really good demonstration, "The Arsenal of Freedom".
Ryan> This is just the first real workout they've gotten.
Ryan> ---------- Ryan Mathews
Actually the best demonstration of them is in 'Q Who' where
they are used to disintegrate about 20% of the Borg ship. Beautifull
effect...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
but if nobody listens Mique Reisch
well, nothing comes true mre...@carina.unm.edu
when you walk on water MREISCH@UNMB
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Scandale
>Yesterday's Enterprise spoilers...
>
>In article <14...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> [in rec.arts.startrek],
>bske...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) said:
>
>> obvious. The question is why she would be so concerned with her own
>> death that she would go back in history to alter the future into one
>> where she is killed. I suppose romance can do that to you...
>
choose another alternate history. The show (and some posters) seem to
think that she was faced with the *alternatives* of living out the
present as she knew it (war with the Klingons) or going back to the
past to experience a meaningless death before her time. These aren't
alternatives in the sense that she would know about one while
experiencing the other. Either one would be exclusive in the sense that
it would be THE only history known to the 'inhabitants' of it.
This whole subject is difficult to describe in words but I believe that
alternative time lines are just that; alternatives. You get one *or*
another.
I think that she felt that in her own subjective time, she would
last about 3 minutes past the time the E-c re-entered the time warp
but her love for Castillio made it the right choice for her.
By the way, another thing I enjoyed about this show was the
greater intensity of almost all the characters; I got the distinct
impression that it was a life-and-death situation. And things happened
faster and more intensely (and with more interpersonal friction)
than is the usual case.
Tom Kuchar
>the saucer could only do sublight, so that the actual tactic would have
>been to do a saucer-sever at lightspeed and then have the saucer "disappear"
>at sublight (ie, sneak away) while the agressor pursued the remaining
>'battlebridge' section. If I recall correctly, in 'encounter at farpoint,'
>the saucer continues at warp whatever while the battlebridge turns around
>to fight whatever it was that was chasing the enterprise.
I read somewhere (possibly one of Starlog's TNG Mags) that the saucer section
is capable of warp speed up to warp 3. ANyway it makes sense that it should
have it's own warp engines, or else after it separated in `Encounter at
Farpoint' it would have taken months to years to reach Fairpoint at sub-light
speed.
K...@psuvm.psu.edu
>In article <11...@batman.moravian.EDU> nich...@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy
>Nicholas) writes:
>> -- actually, I thought that
>>the saucer could only do sublight, so that the actual tactic would have
>>been to do a saucer-sever at lightspeed and then have the saucer "disappear"
>>at sublight (ie, sneak away) while the agressor pursued the remaining
>I read somewhere (possibly one of Starlog's TNG Mags) that the saucer section
>is capable of warp speed up to warp 3. ANyway it makes sense that it should
>have it's own warp engines, or else after it separated in `Encounter at
>Farpoint' it would have taken months to years to reach Fairpoint at sub-light
>speed.
If this is true I would consider it an unfortunate inconsistency in the
explanation we have been given about how warp travel works. Where are the
warp generators? What creates the field? Those cute little things on the
stardrive section are what create the warp envelope that makes the big E
fly like a maniac. If the primary hull seperates from the stardrive section
then it definitely should lose warp ability because there is nothing there
to create a warp field (unless they really pull a cheesy one on us and claim
that its hiding inside somewhere). I can go as far as accepting that the
saucer would remain at warp speeds immediately after seperation because I
would think that it is still in the warp envelop of the stardrive section but
once it is clear, I would have to think it should immediately drop to
sublight speeds.
Just my humble opinion.
Kevin S.
KPS at PSUVM
Ket M'thau
> fly like a maniac. If the primary hull seperates from the stardrive section
> then it definitely should lose warp ability because there is nothing there
> to create a warp field (unless they really pull a cheesy one on us and claim
> that its hiding inside somewhere). I can go as far as accepting that the
Why not? The Klingon "Bird of Prey" ship has internal warp engines. Perhaps
low-speed warp engines have been made safe enough that they *can* be kept
inside the hull of a ship. I've seen something which claimed that the two
impulse-engine-like structures on the back of the saucer are acutally parts
of low-warp engines...
> Kevin S.
p...@mirror.tmc.com
Personally, I think that the idea of Saucer Separation is rather silly.
I know that you have to have it to keep the women and children safe, but it's
a bad idea to have children on the Enterprise to begin with. The Enterprise
is not a cruise ship, it is a Peace Keeping ship - equivilent to an aircraft
carrier or a battle ship. How reasonable is it to have families on one of
these. Ah, but, if you did, you would have to have something like the bridge
being able to take off like a helocopter.
Even if there is complete peace in the Galaxy there are still life threatening
dangers. Look at what happened to a tough woman like Tasha. If there were
welfare systems at this time they would be all over the Federation. The
starfleet would go bankrupt with all of the court fees.
I think that the reason that they have allowed children on the Starship is to
have an excuse to have W.C. on the ship.
I can see G.R. in his young writing days playing with an origional plastic
model of the Enterprise and the top breaks off. He sais to himself, "Wow,
isn't this neat [this being to correct expression for this time period]. If
I ever get the chance to redo the Enterprise, I think that it would be real
cool to have it do this.
My appologies to G.R., but this really gets to me whenever I see reruns of
the (not so quite up to standards) old episodes of TNG.
Sorry if this has already been bantered around, but I saw one of those
eppisodes on a local station recently.
Robert Dagnall
Actually, the idea of having families aboard the NCC-1701-D makes a
great deal of sense. If I recall correctly, the Galaxy-class Enterprise has
a 10-year mission, double that of Kirk's ship(s). It is also equipped for
deep-space exploration, not merely 'peace-keeping' as someone else posted.
Thus, having the families of the crew aboard would be beneficial for morale
purposes; would you want to sign aboard a Starfleet vessel if you had to
leave your loved ones behind for a decade? I wouldn't, and I'm an ardent fan
of the series!
The reverse is also true: families would want to be with the crew-
members, notwithstanding that space is dangerous. Far better to be together
and face the unknown than to be apart and never know what happened....
Some thoughts.
Robert Dagnall |"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo/
email: dag...@ocf.berkeley.edu | So little time, so much to know!"
or: ucbvax!ocf!dagnall |"United we stand; divided we conquer."
Brian Kendig
>Personally, I think that the idea of Saucer Separation is rather silly.
>I know that you have to have it to keep the women and children safe, but it's
>a bad idea to have children on the Enterprise to begin with. The Enterprise
>is not a cruise ship, it is a Peace Keeping ship - equivilent to an aircraft
>carrier or a battle ship.
It's neither a cruise ship nor a battleship, although it bears
semblance to both. The Galaxy-class Enterprise was chartered as an
exploration and support vessel, intended to help further research
about the universe and to maintain the Federation.
A cruise ship? I can just see it now -- Star Trek, the Love Boat
Generation!
> How reasonable is it to have families on one of
>these. Ah, but, if you did, you would have to have something like the bridge
>being able to take off like a helocopter.
A helicopter in space? Tubular, dude!
>Even if there is complete peace in the Galaxy there are still life threatening
>dangers. Look at what happened to a tough woman like Tasha. If there were
>welfare systems at this time they would be all over the Federation. The
>starfleet would go bankrupt with all of the court fees.
Oh, so we keep everyone on Earth, then a Real Big Mysterious Thing
From Space comes and wipes out the planet and all of mankind with it.
(Can't happen? Ask the crew in STIV...) I'd say there's a greater
chance of being hit by a car than there is of being seriously injured
on the Enterprise.
Besides, no one knows how long the mission of the Enterprise will go
on ("... its continuing mission..."). How'd you like to serve on a
starship out in the middle of (literally) nowhere, separated from your
family for ten years or more with no way of talking with them?
(Transmissions from Earth to remote starships may take eight hours or
more, as witnessed in "The Defector".)
>I think that the reason that they have allowed children on the Starship is to
>have an excuse to have W.C. on the ship.
You've mentioned a poor excuse, there. And the bit about allowing
children to be on board just to include him isn't much better.
>I can see G.R. in his young writing days playing with an origional plastic
>model of the Enterprise and the top breaks off. He sais to himself, "Wow,
>isn't this neat [this being to correct expression for this time period]. If
>I ever get the chance to redo the Enterprise, I think that it would be real
>cool to have it do this.
The original Enterprise had a separable saucer as well -- they never
used it, but it was made reference to in one TOS episode.
>My appologies to G.R., but this really gets to me whenever I see reruns of
>the (not so quite up to standards) old episodes of TNG.
So how many times did they separate the saucer?
>Sorry if this has already been bantered around, but I saw one of those
>eppisodes on a local station recently.
Add another one to the pile of Miscellaneous Gripes About Saucer
Separation...
<< Brian >>
--
| Brian S. Kendig \ Macintosh | Engineering, | bskendig |
| Computer Engineering |\ Thought | USS Enterprise | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU
| Princeton University |_\ Police | -= NCC-1701-D =- | @PUCC.BITNET |
... s l o w l y, s l o w l y, w i t h t h e v e l o c i t y o f l o v e.
Ket M'thau
> Personally, I think that the idea of Saucer Separation is rather silly.
> I know that you have to have it to keep the women and children safe, but it's
> a bad idea to have children on the Enterprise to begin with. The Enterprise
> is not a cruise ship, it is a Peace Keeping ship - equivilent to an aircraft
No it isn't. It's an exploratory cruiser, on a 10 - 15 year mission. Not
that Captain Picard thinks that's a good enough excuse to have kids on board :)
Tovah Hollander
>>Personally, I think that the idea of Saucer Separation is rather silly.
^^^^^
The WHO?!?!????
I BEG your pardon! Surely you meant "families" or "spouses" or
"non-Starfleet personnel" or "civilians" or ANYTHING else, right?
--
Tovah Hollander cepu!to...@seas.ucla.edu
{pyramid,ucla-se,ncar}!cepu!tovah