StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I just saw "Encounter at Farpoint" again and noticed something really fucking weird. Remember the first scene of the Enterprise's saucer section separating? It was at warp. Does this mean the saucer has some limited warp drive, or merely the ability to stay inside the stardrive section's warp field after it's established? If it's the latter, then how the hell did the saucer later rendezvous with the stardrive section at Farpoint? A trip that the SS needed warp to make? And now that I think of it, there are other examples of the saucer either making or being expected to make interstellar trips without the stardrive section. Such as TNG "Arsenal of Freedom," where LaForge was instructed to get the saucer to a starbase. How the hell is that supposed to happen if the saucer can't go to warp?

It probably has a back up warp drive which isn't as powerful as the stardrive's, nor has the endurance or range. The saucer is supposed to be used to evacuate the non-essential personnel from the ship; it seems funny that "evacuate" would mean "strand out in deep space where they'll be at the mercy of whatever was chasing the ship to begin with."

That's a guess though.

Stofsk wrote:It probably has a back up warp drive which isn't as powerful as the stardrive's, nor has the endurance or range. The saucer is supposed to be used to evacuate the non-essential personnel from the ship; it seems funny that "evacuate" would mean "strand out in deep space where they'll be at the mercy of whatever was chasing the ship to begin with."

That's a guess though.

Basically what I was thinking, especially since they can put warp drive on shuttles and torpedoes.

No, things in warp coast down to impulse if they don't have a warp sustaining field.

According to the TNG tech manual, the saucer section's impulse engines are capable of sustaining a warp field, but that field strength steadily drops off the longer the saucer's flight at warp velocities lasts. The drop-off time is considered sufficent to at least allow the saucer to reach Federation space or a relatively nearby outpost or starbase.

I think the idea is that it's sort of like a ramjet with a very small fuel tank. It can't get itself up to speed, but it can run off a boost for a little while. It's a decent rationalization, although it is, of course, totally irreconcilable with the space-warp notion of warp drive (for which "sustainers" would require no less energy).

Darth Wong wrote:I think the idea is that it's sort of like a ramjet with a very small fuel tank. It can't get itself up to speed, but it can run off a boost for a little while. It's a decent rationalization, although it is, of course, totally irreconcilable with the space-warp notion of warp drive (for which "sustainers" would require no less energy).

Probably why they simply forgot about saucer seperation after "Best Of Both Worlds" and the saucer running at warp after "The Arsenal Of Freedom". If Gene Roddenberry had not incorporated the truly idiotic idea of carrying families and children aboard the Enterprise, it would have negated the need for this particular and ultimately underused plot device in the first place.

Patrick Degan wrote:Probably why they simply forgot about saucer seperation after "Best Of Both Worlds" and the saucer running at warp after "The Arsenal Of Freedom". If Gene Roddenberry had not incorporated the truly idiotic idea of carrying families and children aboard the Enterprise, it would have negated the need for this particular and ultimately underused plot device in the first place.

I like the way it was so obviously a case of some writers saying "hey, wouldn't this look cool?" rather than trying to construct a plausibly consistent or intelligible fictional universe. Much as the entire film "Nemesis" was nothing more than a string of loosely and implausibly connected "wouldn't this look cool!" scenes. The TNG circle completes itself

Darth Wong wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote:Probably why they simply forgot about saucer seperation after "Best Of Both Worlds" and the saucer running at warp after "The Arsenal Of Freedom". If Gene Roddenberry had not incorporated the truly idiotic idea of carrying families and children aboard the Enterprise, it would have negated the need for this particular and ultimately underused plot device in the first place.

I like the way it was so obviously a case of some writers saying "hey, wouldn't this look cool?" rather than trying to construct a plausibly consistent or intelligible fictional universe. Much as the entire film "Nemesis" was nothing more than a string of loosely and implausibly connected "wouldn't this look cool!" scenes. The TNG circle completes itself

Except that a lot of those scenes in Nemesis weren't cool.

Kamakazie Sith wrote:Except that a lot of those scenes in Nemesis weren't cool.

No, but many of them looked cool. It was the astounding storytelling stupidity which sunk those scenes (and the movie), although one could certainly ask some harsh questions about certain cosmetic issues in the film.

What drove Roddenberry to have families aboard the E-D in the first place? Did the writers actually expect them to figure into the plot fairly often?

And you'd think that if the writers liked the idea that they'd have written Picard as liking the idea as well, when IIRC he didn't. Maybe that's why Picard almost never separated. Maybe he was trying to show Starfleet that he wouldn't let their pet social experiment get in the way of him completing the mission as he saw fit.

Darth Wong wrote:No, but many of them looked cool. It was the astounding storytelling stupidity which sunk those scenes (and the movie), although one could certainly ask some harsh questions about certain cosmetic issues in the film.

*snort* Like the shameless reuse of the Dominion battlecruiser and Son'a battleship shapes?

Uraniun235 wrote:What drove Roddenberry to have families aboard the E-D in the first place? Did the writers actually expect them to figure into the plot fairly often?

The reason given in Paramount propaganda was that Gene Roddenberry wanted to emphasise the idea that the Enterprise represented the human community in space blah blah blah blahblahblah... I suspect the actual reason was to limit the writers even further from telling conflict/battle driven stories. This of course means a SF TV show with all the excitement and adventure of the Snail Grand Prix, so eventually they wrote such episodes anyway despite the retention of the ludicrous family-ship plot device. Essentially, the Worst of Both Worlds.

And you'd think that if the writers liked the idea that they'd have written Picard as liking the idea as well, when IIRC he didn't. Maybe that's why Picard almost never separated. Maybe he was trying to show Starfleet that he wouldn't let their pet social experiment get in the way of him completing the mission as he saw fit.

No, what they showed instead was a Federation which thought nothing about putting thousands of civillians in danger —as at Wolf 359.

Uraniun235 wrote:What drove Roddenberry to have families aboard the E-D in the first place? Did the writers actually expect them to figure into the plot fairly often?

"Inside Trek", pg.132:

I told him I didn't think the concept of children aboard the ship would work-and many of the fans and critics later agreed with me-but he refused to drop this, comparing the lengthy voyages of the Enterprise with pioneers moving their wagons west across the American frontier of the 1880s. I countered with, "Yes, but the Enterprise crew aren't space settlers, they're explorers. They'll be going home again." It didn't wash with him, and the concept remained.

Lord Poe wrote:
"Inside Trek", pg.132:

I told him I didn't think the concept of children aboard the ship would work-and many of the fans and critics later agreed with me-but he refused to drop this, comparing the lengthy voyages of the Enterprise with pioneers moving their wagons west across the American frontier of the 1880s. I countered with, "Yes, but the Enterprise crew aren't space settlers, they're explorers. They'll be going home again." It didn't wash with him, and the concept remained.

So basically he was still hung up on that "Wagon Train to the Stars" premise he used to see the first show even though that show ended up being nothing of the sort. For that matter neither did TNG. They would have had to have been much further from the Federation and help if that were the case.

Lord Poe wrote: "Inside Trek", pg.132:

I told him I didn't think the concept of children aboard the ship would work-and many of the fans and critics later agreed with me-but he refused to drop this, comparing the lengthy voyages of the Enterprise with pioneers moving their wagons west across the American frontier of the 1880s. I countered with, "Yes, but the Enterprise crew aren't space settlers, they're explorers. They'll be going home again." It didn't wash with him, and the concept remained.

God I want to hit Roddenberry. His quest to make ST TNG + as unmilitary as possible is one of the most insanely stupid things I have ever seen. It led to stupidity like CIVILANS on a Starfleet ship. Ok that MIGHT, *MIGHT* work on ships at the core of the Federation performing necessary tasks for member planets. But sure, lets put hundreds of civilians and even KIDS! - KIDS! - on a deep space exploritory ship.

While where at it, he was happy to design the phasers to look as 'ungun' like as possible (ignoring the fact that guns LOOK like they do...because they are actualy effective as such), the bridge to look as unmilitary as possible (making it look like a staff lounge at a rec center)...

Gah. Roddenberry had some truely idiotic ideas.

ignoring the fact that guns LOOK like they do...because they are actualy effective as such

Urr....but since phasers aren't guns, does it really matter if they look like them or not? I haven't noticed any magazines or spent casings popping out of phasers lately.

Rhadamanthus wrote:

ignoring the fact that guns LOOK like they do...because they are actualy effective as such

Urr....but since phasers aren't guns, does it really matter if they look like them or not? I haven't noticed any magazines or spent casings popping out of phasers lately.

Don't be stupid. Do you really think the shape of a gun stems entirely from the need to eject spent shell casings or carry a magazine?

Just try to aim a pistol with no recognizable barrel or sights, and which forces you to hold your hand in an unnatural position in order to aim straight. The shape of a gun stems from more than the need for a magazine; revolvers and assault rifles do not have a magazine in the handle, yet they still have the same basic handle and trigger configuration. Didn't you ever wonder why?

Didn't you ever wonder why a decent professional hand-held power drill (not those dinky "as seen on TV" things) has the same basic handle, trigger, and body configuration as a gun? It is ergonomically effective.

Please report to the SD.Net firearms indoctrination centre for tortu- I mean "education".

Brian Young had an excellent visual for guns vs non pistol-shaped phasers:

Grab a laser pointer, then spin and bullseye the pillow on your bed. See how accurate you are.

The bridge design could have been much worse from some artork I have seen it could have had an elevated walkway with controls that you need an elevator to reach....potted plants...and the brefing room actually a part of the bridge not a seperate room.......

Typhonis 1 wrote:The bridge design could have been much worse from some artork I have seen it could have had an elevated walkway with controls that you need an elevator to reach....potted plants...and the brefing room actually a part of the bridge not a seperate room.......

*Ouch* And this on a Military Ship-of-the-Line? That's worse than a luxury cruise liner! :barf:

Gene Roddenberry's behaviour is, like many hacks, driven by something other than the demands of the story or even its universe. Rather than ask whether something made sense in the context of the Star Trek universe, his principal criterion seemed to be whether it promoted the correct values.

Its true I got the book The Art of Star Trek for some of the TOS and Trek 2 stuffff the bridge of the Ent D was going to look like the lounge of a frelling HOTEL.......

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote: *Ouch* And this on a Military Ship-of-the-Line? That's worse than a luxury cruise liner! :barf:

Cruise liners and other modern merchant vessels tend to have very good bridge layouts and equipment, though they don't maintain nearly as good watches as military vessels.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote: *Ouch* And this on a Military Ship-of-the-Line? That's worse than a luxury cruise liner! :barf:

Cruise liners and other modern merchant vessels tend to have very good bridge layouts and equipment, though they don't maintain nearly as good watches as military vessels.

So basically the Ent-D bridge layout has no precedent (or bearing) in Real Life whatsoever? At least an ISD's bridge is somewhat intelligently designed...