Quick Question about E-E

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-12-11 10:08pm

Could it, if it really needed to, land on planet?

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2002-12-11 10:09pm

Probably in the same way the E-D "landed" on a planet.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-12-11 10:09pm

And that would be...?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-12-11 10:10pm

Only by the "smack into the ground and hope we eventually stop" manuever.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-11 10:10pm

With a big thud. Watch Generations.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-12-11 11:00pm

The ship appeared to have been seriously damaged by its landing with the planet, though it is possible that if it had tried to do so without first being damaged in combat, it could have done so with less serious complications.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-12-12 12:07am

Potentially. It appeared to be an essentially unpowered approach; given Trek mass-lightening and such, it ought to be possible to brake to a relative stop over a given location and just decend on .9-odd g's of thrust.

MirrorUniverseSpy1 · Post by **MirrorUniverseSpy1** » 2002-12-12 01:25am

The E-E trying to land on a planet would probably be like the E-D
landing in Generations. So far, Voyager is the only Fed ship I know
of that can land on a planet.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-12 08:38am

Does the E-E have saucer sep?

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 2002-12-12 08:48am

Saucer Sep was one of those things that never made much sense to begin with.

As the E_E seems to make more sense than the E_D, structurally, then I would be led to belive that Saucer Sep just doesnt happen.

As for landing? Sure, you can land it. Same way you land a Star Destroyer.

Once.
Permanently.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-12 10:00am

MirrorUniverseSpy1 wrote:The E-E trying to land on a planet would probably be like the E-D
landing in Generations. So far, Voyager is the only Fed ship I know
of that can land on a planet.

Actually there are three Trek ships that can land on a planet. Voyager first demonstrated it. If you look at the master display for Voyager, you will note the landing gear are shown on it. Defiant and Prometheus class ships also have these landing gear on their master displays.

BenRG · Post by **BenRG** » 2002-12-12 10:49am

Hmm... Thanks, Ayleska, I didn't notice that feature of either class. Of course, it is logical for the Defiant (which isn't much bigger than a bulk frieghter) should have planetary landing capability. I wonder where the egress ramp is...?

On the topic, if you look at the 'Voyager', 'Defiant' and 'Prometheus', you will notice that they all have a long, flat and broad ventral surface. Their landing gear is situated at the extremities of that surface. The 'Enterprise'-E has a very sharp, narrow and short ventral surface at the very bottom of the secondary hull. Even if you fit landing gear there, the ship would be very unstable and top-heavy on the surface of a planet.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2002-12-12 10:51am

Only the smaller ships like Intrepids would be able to land, obviously, the E-E can't.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-12 11:19am

BenRG wrote:Hmm... Thanks, Ayleska, I didn't notice that feature of either class. Of course, it is logical for the Defiant (which isn't much bigger than a bulk frieghter) should have planetary landing capability. I wonder where the egress ramp is...?

It might be part of the Shuttlebay itself.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... type10.jpg

Thats the most logical place. Just open up the doors and run a ramp down. Good place to move materials into the ship as well.

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2002-12-12 11:51am

The Dark wrote:With a big thud. Watch Generations.

Do you really hate him that much, to make him watch such a terrible movie?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-12 11:54am

SolidSnake wrote:
The Dark wrote:With a big thud. Watch Generations.
Do you really hate him that much, to make him watch such a terrible movie?

Well, as bad as the movie was as a whole, the first half BEFORE Picard entered the Nexus was tollerable.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-12-13 12:20am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Only by the "smack into the ground and hope we eventually stop" manuever.

One of the TMs published prior to Generations said that the saucer had been designed to be able to crash-land on a planet surface as a final option, and that while it was anticipated that most of the crew would survive, the saucer would be effectively rendered un-spaceworthy in the process.

On the topic, if you look at the 'Voyager', 'Defiant' and 'Prometheus', you will notice that they all have a long, flat and broad ventral surface. Their landing gear is situated at the extremities of that surface. The 'Enterprise'-E has a very sharp, narrow and short ventral surface at the very bottom of the secondary hull. Even if you fit landing gear there, the ship would be very unstable and top-heavy on the surface of a planet.

Heh, have you noticed where the landing gear are for the Intrepids? The saucer just sort of hangs out in the front... one would expect that sucker to tip over forward.

Saucer Sep was one of those things that never made much sense to begin with.

As the E_E seems to make more sense than the E_D, structurally, then I would be led to belive that Saucer Sep just doesnt happen.

IIRC, all saucer/stardrive-design ships had the capability to saucer-sep; it was just the Galaxy (or maybe the Ambassador?) that could disconnect and reconnect at will, without the facilities of a Starbase. (non-canon, but I don't think it really matters)

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-12-13 12:21am

Addendum: The reason being, I think, so that the crew could escape if the reactor were critically damaged, without having to sacrifice the *entire* ship.

arctic_series · Post by **arctic_series** » 2002-12-13 02:33am

BOP's can also land

BenRG · Post by **BenRG** » 2002-12-13 08:37am

Uraniun235 wrote:
BenRG wrote:On the topic, if you look at the 'Voyager', 'Defiant' and 'Prometheus', you will notice that they all have a long, flat and broad ventral surface. Their landing gear is situated at the extremities of that surface. The 'Enterprise'-E has a very sharp, narrow and short ventral surface at the very bottom of the secondary hull. Even if you fit landing gear there, the ship would be very unstable and top-heavy on the surface of a planet.
Heh, have you noticed where the landing gear are for the Intrepids? The saucer just sort of hangs out in the front... one would expect that sucker to tip over forward.

Well, there is a lot more weight to the back to counterbalance the saucer: The warp nacelles (full of some high-density material in the subspace coils, IIRC), the shuttle hangers and the main engines.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-12-13 09:00am

In the old lit, the whole Fed saucer sections were supposed to be glorified life boats. Allegedly that was the whole reason for the Seperation bullshit too.. (However since the Lit. has no bearing on ST debates, (Grumbles))

From the looks of things
Klingon Birds of Prey, Definately.

No one has ever seen an Orion ship, but those are all custom jobs, but seeing as they are pased off your Carribean pirates, they could probly land too. (In the Ret. Conned Lit they could)

Why do I wish Daune & SFB were in charge of Trek continuity not, Berman & Bragga?