Page 12 of 18
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:57 am
by Teaos
I is always making a sense.
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:19 pm
by Mikey
Plus, aren't the impulse engines wholly or partly contained in the saucer? That means using only the star drive section, you'd be losing a major secondary power source.
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:10 pm
by Graham Kennedy
I don't recall the TNG TM saying anything about a limit to the number of disconnects/reconnects. I don't have it to hand to check though.
The real world reason why they dropped the idea was that it was too clunky for the story. Spend screentime disconnecting, reconnecting. Less possibility for using stock FX footage. That kind of thing. They came up with excuses like "I want the power of the impulse engines available" and such. Which makes some sense. The Saucer also has the two longest phaser arrays on the ship, which has to be of some sort of use.
But youhave to wonder, if all that is such an important factor, why have the disconnect option at all? Doesn't seem to be a lot it accomplishes that lifeboats don't.
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:33 pm
by Sionnach Glic
I'm sure you're all going to be shocked to hear me suggest this, but my guess would be that the writers are morons.
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:07 pm
by Graham Kennedy
Rochey wrote:I'm sure you're all going to be shocked to hear me suggest this, but my guess would be that the writers are morons.
Sometimes I wonder why you actually watch Star Trek. Are you one of those folks who like yelling at the TV?
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:22 pm
by Mikey
I only do that while watching sporting events. You know, because I'm so good that I sit and watch them from home.
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:26 pm
by Aaron
I know that the original concept was to give the families and various civvies a way to escape a coming battle (and IIRC this option was available on the Big E in TOS, though it was permanent) but honestly, why wasn't there a warp drive on it?
"Ok, lets seperate the ship and hope to frag that we don't get destroyed and the enemy doubles back and destroys all our families that are now years away from a Starbase."
Once again, great concept. Dismal execution.
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:34 pm
by Blackstar the Chakat
I don't recall the TNG TM saying anything about a limit to the number of disconnects/reconnects. I don't have it to hand to check though
I remember reading something like that, but I can't find it.
"Ok, lets seperate the ship and hope to frag that we don't get destroyed and the enemy doubles back and destroys all our families that are now years away from a Starbase."
Once again, great concept. Dismal execution.
A rare occasion were we agree. The New Frontier series compensated for the weakness somewhat with the Excalibur-A having a 'warp sled' built into the saucer giving it limited warp capabilities. Even if it can only reach warp 2 that's better then nothing. Ironically it wasn't used to escape but for separated combat instead.
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:38 pm
by Aaron
ChakatBlackstar wrote:
I remember reading something like that, but I can't find it.
Really it makes sense. That's got to cause all kinds of stress and there are large moving parts involved. Sooner or later it's going to break and even with the most basic connectors in RL, you reach a point where they need to be replaced.
A rare occasion were we agree. The New Frontier series compensated for the weakness somewhat with the Excalibur-A having a 'warp sled' built into the saucer giving it limited warp capabilities. Even if it can only reach warp 2 that's better then nothing. Ironically it wasn't used to escape but for separated combat instead.
Rather like the warp sled in TMP. Good idea.
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:51 pm
by Blackstar the Chakat
I just thought of another hastle. The TM mentions that the seperated ships have different flight characteristics then in combined mode. The conn officers would all have to be trained in flying for the equivilent of three different ships.
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:54 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Sometimes I wonder why you actually watch Star Trek. Are you one of those folks who like yelling at the TV?
Not at all. Despite what it may seem like, I liked TOS, TNG and DS9. They were all good series with good plots. VOY and ENT were where the show really went downhill.
My problem isn't with the show itself, just the idiocy that is displayed in the show.
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:59 pm
by Graham Kennedy
Rochey wrote:Sometimes I wonder why you actually watch Star Trek. Are you one of those folks who like yelling at the TV?
Not at all. Despite what it may seem like, I liked TOS, TNG and DS9. They were all good series with good plots. VOY and ENT were where the show really went downhill.
My problem isn't with the show itself, just the idiocy that is displayed in the show.
I have this mental image of you sitting there muttering "morons! Idiots! Oh god, look at that! So stupid!"
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:47 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:33 am
by Teaos
You do know the mirror universe was created to satisfy Rocheys need for violence?
Re: Saucer Seperation
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:38 pm
by Deepcrush
Teaos wrote:You do know the mirror universe was created to satisfy Rocheys need for violence?
And yet it doesn't even come close to meeting mine.