Talk: Saucer separation

Featured article status

FA nomination (11 April 2005, Successful)

Saucer separation -- I think this page shows all the information you could think of about saucer separation. It also contains background information that I found very interesting. The pictures used back up the text, and enhance certain points. zsingaya 02:14, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

• Support. Extended write-up with good pictures. Perfect! Ottens 08:37, 9 Apr 2005 (EDT)
• Support. This is a superbly written article. The pictures suit it nicely. Probably the best non-featured article I've read so far. --Scimitar 19:51, 10 Apr 2005 (EDT)"

• Archived: I've included here the support made for this article to be made into a featured article: (zsingaya 11:29, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT))

Removal suggestion (15 November 2010, Withdrawn)

From: Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates

Saucer separation

This is another article featured a while back that has a nearly citation-less background information section, despite containing numerous claims. Gvsualan added incite tags back in February, but many still remain. Unless they are resolved this article should be removed as a Featured Article. – Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 11:22, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support removal unless problems are addressed.--31dot 19:00, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support, due to the lack of citations. --Defiant 09:45, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I too Support this. -- TrekFan ^Talk 22:46, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Update - SmokeDetector47 has provided the missing citations, and it all looks ship-shape now. Unless anyone has further reasons for FA removal, I will archive this discussion.– Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 04:23, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Archived.– Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 01:02, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Sources Required

• "Commander Riker suggested a saucer separation shortly before the Enterprise was sent to investigate possible Romulan activity later that year, although Picard felt it was too early to justify such an action."

This section from the sub-heading "3.1 Tactical uses" lacks sources. I don't know the source off hand. Could someone fix it? Otherwise it should be removed. Thanks -- Captain MAJ ^=/\=|**** 19:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is from TNG: "The Neutral Zone", I just watched it yesterday. I'll add the citation. --OuroborosCobra 19:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when I originally wrote this it was in reference to the teaser for "Heart of Glory." The episode is sourced in the following paragraph; the two paragraphs should be read together as one unbroken passage. I don't recall them mentioning separation in the "The Neutral Zone," however. -- SmokeDetector47^{( TALK )} 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I just watched "The Neutral Zone" yesterday. Riker suggest seperating the saucer, and Picard responds that it is too soon. I think it works best where it is now. They happened in the same year as well, and the line matches almost perfect from "The Neuutral Zone". If it was written from the teaser for "Hear of Glory", why would it be laterthat year? Wouldn't it be more like later that day? ;-) --OuroborosCobra 01:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't read your re-write since my last comment. I have now. The "Heart of Glory" reference makes more sense now. I have re-added "The Neutral Zone" reference, I saw it last night, it was there, and deserves to be on the list as much as the "Heart of Glory" one. --OuroborosCobra 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No warp drive on Saucer Section?

Since the saucer section has no warp drive, how could it even get to the nearest starbase in a practical amount of time? --Darth borehd 03:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It couldn't. Chances are that another ship would come by, or something. I do seem to remember something from the Tech Manual about being able to maintain warp drive for a certain amount of time if it is released at warp. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is something like the driver coil assembly can channel the decaying warp field of a high warp separation allowing the saucer to come out of warp in a slow and controlled manner. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.221.83.112.

Starship separation

In regards to the uncited reference to starship separation, I'm pretty sure Picard stated "All hands prepare for starship separation", or something similar in Encounter at Farpoint just before the battle with Q. I'll check this later today when I get a chance. Tanky 04:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that I know where to look, I found it :P

Data says it in "Encounter at Farpoint", confirmed in script and transcript. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Picard, Data, same difference :P. Glad I could be of assistance. Tanky 04:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

TOS Saucer Separation

It is referenced that in the TOS episode "The Apple" the Constitution class can preform saucer sep. Having just watched said episode; I see no mention of this in the episode at all. The article on the Constitution class again has this reference. --PFreeman008 03:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's referring to this line by Kirk: Then use your imagination. Tie every ounce of power the ship has into the impulse engines. Discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to, and crack out of there with the main section, but get that ship out of there! The separation of the main section from the rest of the ship isn't done though, as Scotty tries something "just as dangerous."--Tim Thomason 03:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not really saucer seperation though is it.212.74.27.54 13:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. The main section Kirk was referring to was the saucer section. From what I understand, Gene Roddenberry always intended the ship to be sep capable, but it was never done in TOS because of effects and budget limitations. leandar 14:15, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Excelsior Seperation in Generations

The Apocrypha section of the article mentions a Seperation drill on the Excelsior in the novel of Generations, but someone over on the Fleet Ops website claims to have been through the book and found no mention of the Excelsior anywhere... Was it really mentioned? Fadm tyler (talk) 22:29, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I've read it, and it was mentioned; it is what Sulu was doing when he learned of Kirk's death on the Enterprise-B. 31dot (talk) 22:51, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I too have read the novelization - the Excelsior is conducting a core breach drill, which included separating the saucer.

I should also point out the thread in question, where the user in question seems to think that they were "authorized" to remove the section, and that they "showed [us] proof".

This should hopefully work: Google books search of the novel for "Excelsior separation" - page 61 is the relevant bit. -- Michael Warren | Talk 08:10, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

I received the following email from the Je mezu24 on this issue:

Just to let you know, the reason I have made changes is because I have accurate proof that the information is false already that is being posted. I can even prove it because I have read the books that the information is supposingly from and can prove that it isn't even in there. Furthermore, these books that are in question I own and read on a regular basis.

I can clearly point out that here on Memory Alpha, Memory Beta and Memory Gamma that you got people editing pages that don't know the correct information to many of their posts and have posted false information to different sections and passing it off to be true, information that as I said I can prove is false.

I have been reading it over the years and laughing at how crazy their posts are and how un-canon and false they are to Star Trek. Memory Alpha has always been for canon stuff related to Star Trek and books aren't canon. Half the things being posted aren't canon, and I know this through talking to different producers for the Star Trek Franchise, along with the editors at Pocket Books, Marco Palmieri and Margaret Clark.

I myself have contributed to the Star Trek Community and have even talked to the editiors of the books about the problems that have occured, I am writing a Star Trek novel as well, and have been only using canon based sources and information, I've had to by pass so much here because it isn't accurate that it isn't even funny anymore.

I suggest you look at the links that DarkHorizon posted above; they clearly show the passages are in there, aside from the fact we have both witnessed them with our own eyes. 31dot (talk) 23:06, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Here is the specific passage from the book that I own (I typed it out myself, so pardon any typos). It is a standard novelization, nothing on it about being a "special collectors edition" as Je_mesu24 is going on about on the boards noted above:

"Docksey. Approximate distance from planets or other structures?" The young lieutenant seemed to have recovered from her moment of disconcertment; she replied smoothly, "One half parsec to the nearest starbase, sir. No planets within a five-parsec radius." Sulu nodded approvingly. "Stand by to take us to maximum warp, Mr. Docksey. I want at least two parsecs between us and the secondary hull when she goes. Mr. Lojur--initiate separation procedure." "Initiating." "Mr. Valtane--" Valtane, who had hurried to his station the instant the red alert began, turned to reply, his restlessness replaced by the same intense anticipation shared by those on the bridge.

"--time left before detonation?" Sulu finished.

"Two minutes, six seconds, Captain." Sulu nodded, satisfied, and waited, silently counting the seconds until at last Lojur called, "Separation procedure complete, Captain."

As an aside, page 61 of the link above does not show up for me in Canada, so it may be a UK/US thing only, I'm uncertain. -- sulfur (talk) 00:40, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort in doing that, Sulfur. Even if it was true that it was a "special edition" of some kind, it was still published and should still be mentioned. 31dot (talk) 02:30, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I received another email from Je mesu24:

The God's Honest truth is that the books that say such a thing are "Special Collector Editions" and the main regular versions of the books don't say anything about it and that means that majority of the people have the books that don't mention the information that is posted there for logic dictates that it should be omited or stated that it is from the "Special Collectors Edition" or deleted.

You HAVE to take into consideration the different version of the books unless you are not smart enough to do so and post a simple side note that says that its only from the Special Collectors Edition. After all, what is just a few extra words when its the truth at least.

Maybe you need to site back and truly relearn the entire Star Trek Universe and also remember that Memory Alpha is for CANON based Star Trek and NOT BOOKS since they aren't canon. All that references a book, even a novelization of a movie should be posted at Memory Beta with wll due respect.

Is there any evidence of a "special edition" with different text other than your word? Have you compared them? I would also submit that you don't understand Memory Alpha as much as you think; as we mention novels in a different context. 31dot (talk) 00:55, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Minor issue with wording in opening section

This article refers to saucer separation as an "emergency maneuver." Two issues there.

1: While it can be, and has been, used in emergencies, I wouldn't say that it is strictly for emergency use. One could easily find situations where it may need to separate that does not include danger or dire need. Eternal example: Any situation where 2 ships could be needed but no second ship is available.

Since both sections can function completely autonomously with their own reactors, shields, weapons, sensors, etc, they can essentially function as two ships. One half could conceivably be used as a relay in a section of space which EM and subspace communications are incapable of traveling far. Obviously there are other examples.

2: A maneuver is a strategic movement or repositioning, often done in a fight, battle, or war and can be offensive or defensive. Taking something apart is not necessarily a maneuver. This is not to say that it could not be used AS a maneuver or as part of one, but it is not one in-and-of itself. The proper word would be procedure.

I realize this is small potatoes, but it certainly effects the complexion of the first line, which is the defining statement of the article.Dr. Quincy Lancelot Killjoy, M.D., Psy.D. (talk) 13:57, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

That opening (which I slightly altered to state both "emergency" or "tactical maneuver") is based entirely on what was seen, or how it was used on screen. Your examples are completely hypothetical and not based on what was seen, or how it was used on screen. --Alan (talk) 14:06, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

My example was theoretical, not hypothetical. But that is aside from the point. Even if we dismiss my example, the entirety of my point still stands. Only labeling saucer separation as an emergency (or tactical) operation is false by premise. Stating that the procedure is a "maneuver" is false by definition. Dr. Quincy Lancelot Killjoy, M.D., Psy.D. (talk) 15:09, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, very much beside the point. And, no, no it is not. If reattaching the saucer and star drive section is considered a "maneuver", then so shall the reverse process. --Alan (talk) 14:49, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

You may wish to look up the definition of maneuver and then tell me how releasing a handful of hatches falls under that definition. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. Quincy Lancelot Killjoy, M.D., Psy.D. (talk • contribs).

And you may need to learn how to properly indent on Memory Alpha, as well as sign your comments, oh, and, cite canon references to your arguments. Mine is "Encounter at Farpoint". What's yours. --Alan (talk) 15:20, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I have to ask why it is you're being so adversarial for seemingly no reason. I am not suggesting there is any information that is specifically wrong, only that it should be worded slightly different to be more accurate. Yet, you are being unnecessarily combative and trying hard to disagree with me when I haven't stated anything factually incorrect.

Furthermore, as with every wiki I have bothered with, discussions on talk pages have each response indented 1 indent further than the previous to make it easier to follow a discussion within a subject. This very page has some examples, as do nearly every other page with more than a couple dozen conversations on MemAlph. If you can show me MA policy specifically going against the established norm, then I will be happy to abide by it while I'm here. And as for signing the posts, since you and I are the only ones currently talking here, and likely to remain the only ones, I saw no point in cluttering. But it is policy, so no problem.

But, as to my original point, by the definition of the word "maneuver," the action of separating the ship is not a maneuver in and of itself. While it can be used in maneuvers, it is not one. Now, manual reconnecting of the primary and secondary hulls (of which Picard requested of Riker) requires a series of minute movements and constant calibrations. It is, at best, a series of maneuvers, but could be called a maneuver without being too erroneous. However, in "Encounter," it was referred to as docking, not as a maneuver. Nor was the separation called such (as you seem believe.)

In fact, I ran a search through the entire episode's (EaF) transcripts for the word maneuver, and found nothing. So your comment about how you're using "EaF" as a source is a completely false claim. One you made from your very first response to me. However, my "sources" are the English language as presented by virtually all dictionaries. A maneuver is always defined as a movement, change of location or position, or repositioning. It is never defined as taking something apart.

Even further, in "Arsenal of Freedom," when Geordie separated the enterprise, he did so, not in the middle of an emergency, but when he was far from danger, and only so he could return to the planet after leaving the majority of the ship's complement on the saucer section. He did this not in a dire state of emergency, but as a preemptive safety measure. And while he did return for battle, separating the ship was not done to increase tactical battle advantage, or at least not strictly, but to risk less life.

Also, I searched the transcript of "AoF" for the word maneuver, and barely a trace of it there. OInly when Geordie was flying the ship into the planet's atmosphere and he said, "We're going to lose some maneuverability," when talking to the helmsman, Solis. Additionally, nowhere else in this article is it referred to as a maneuver. A search of both episodes of "Best of Both Worlds" (the only other episode I could remember where they came apart and were put back together), and no sign of the word maneuver in that either.

As it stands, nowhere in any of the episodes that it happened is it called a maneuver. Additionally, calling it an "emergency" anything (maneuver, action, process, etc) is simply a less accurate phrasing that what it should be. Unless you want to blindly name some more "sources," my point, again, still stands.

(Apologies for the length of the response. I had no intention of being so long-winded when I came here, but I wanted to be thorough in response to your comments.)

PS: A link to rules for indenting on talk pages would be nice too. Dr. Quincy Lancelot Killjoy, M.D., Psy.D. (talk) 23:17, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

MA:TALK. Was that so hard? :) -- sulfur (talk) 00:17, July 19, 2020 (UTC)

I am being "adversarial", because this was going to be, and still is a waste of time. So tired of one off editors, who show up trying to change the world, fixated on petty details. Don't blame us, blame the episode writers for the universe they created.

And since I came to class having already done my homework, next time you might want to look through transcripts for the word "manoeuvre". --Alan (talk) 03:55, July 19, 2020 (UTC)