Daystrom Institute
Welcome to Daystrom Institute!
Serious, in-depth discussion about Star Trek from both in-universe and real world perspectives.
Read more about how to comment at Daystrom.
Rules
1. Explain your reasoning
All threads and comments submitted to the Daystrom Institute must contain an explanation of the reasoning put forth.
2. No whinging, jokes, memes, and other shallow content.
This entire community has a “serious tag” on it. Shitposts are encouraged in Risa.
3. Be diplomatic.
Participate in a courteous, objective, and open-minded fashion. Be nice to other posters and the people who make Star Trek. Disagree respectfully and don’t gatekeep.
4. Assume good faith.
Assume good faith. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but report them if you genuinely believe they are trolling. Don’t whine about “politics.”
5. Tag spoilers.
Historically Daystrom has not had a spoiler policy, so you may encounter untagged spoilers here. Ultimately, avoiding online discussion until you are caught up is the only certain way to avoid spoilers.
6. Stay on-topic.
Threads must discuss Star Trek. Comments must discuss the topic raised in the original post.
Episode Guides
The /r/DaystromInstitute wiki held a number of popular Star Trek watch guides. We have rehosted them here:
- Kraetos’ guide to Star Trek (the original series)
- Algernon_Asimov’s guide to Star Trek: The Animated Series
- Algernon_Asimov’s guide to Star Trek: The Next Generation
- Algernon_Asimov’s guide to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
- Darth_Rasputin32898’s guide to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
- OpticalData’s guide to Star Trek: Voyager
- petrus4’s guide to Star Trek: Voyager
view the rest of the comments
A lot of the focus here seems to be on the military utility, which is also how I suppose the separation feature was presented in the show.
But an obvious use case would probably have been less dramatic. Anytime two things needed to be done at the same time. Send the drive section to the more distant or dangerous location and keep the saucer where it’s safer, like running supplies or something for a planet.
Don’t know it would have been good TV though?! Perhaps if it was used as a plot device to put the ship in trouble?
That's a fair point. The utility of the saucer as a separate craft doing different jobs is pretty limited though, which is another reason why we might not see it in day-to-day operations. There is only so much a 600m disc with no warp drive can accomplish on it's own.
It's the no warp thing that really limits its ability. The saucer can 1. limp back home. or 2. stay put while the rest of the ship does something risky and then hope they don't have to resort to number 1.
I could see the saucer section being left in orbit to assist with evacuations while the stardrive section "goes for help" but even this seems like a bit situational.
It's not just the lack of warp that presents a problem. It's the lack of power generation. If I remember correctly, and I'll admit I may be misremembering, but isn't the bulk of the Ent-D's energy generation done by the warp core as well? So if the saucer is separated, any heavy power use (i.e. the main phaser array, heavy transporter use, etc.) is going to require the saucer to eventually link back up to refresh it's power reserves lest they end up in a Voyager power rationing situation.
Edit: This same point is what drives me crazy when I see the separated warp nacelles in DSC. If the ship loses power for any reason, the nacelles are going to float away which just adds to the list of problems to solve when getting the ship back under way. Also, if there's a momentary power interruption to the beam emitters holding the nacelles in place, what's to stop them from launching off like warp-powered torpedoes?
To your comments about the floating nacelles - what's even supposed to be the point? I can't imagine how having nacelles detached offers that much of an advantage.
I honestly do not know why they chose to do that. I can't think of any advantage to it at all.