The only time she really got hammered was when that torpedo slammed into her forward saucer. A Torpedo, I might add, that was specifically designed to pierce the hull and detonate inside. A dedicated ship killer. ANY ship from ANY era would have taken heavy damage from that kind of attack. Hell... armor piercing weapons are a thing today, and are one of the primary ways to attack a modern tank. Pierce the hull and damage the interior.
The part with the torpedo was incredibly stupid.
On one hand this thing bypasses shields all together and manages to bury itself into the hull. Fair so far, Section 31 has a lot of cool gadgets with tech above the common one in the Trekverse (even if some are utterly ridiculous like the gadgets Georgiou uses to rescue Tyler and L'Rell), so an armor piercing torpedo dedicated to pierce through a ship and detonate inside it for massive damage is a good concept for such an organization.
But then, this thing has a big secondary(?) timer of FIFTEEN minutes and obviously (though clearly accidentally on the writer's part) unleashes all its payload at just one side of it. I mean, Pike is nearly at POINT-BLANK range just behind a blast door (with a massive window, because why not?) and all he gets is some flashing light in his eyes while 1/5th of the saucer hull in front of him is vaporized. The door doesn't even get distorted or anything and Cornwell just gets some breeze on her and is engulfed in flames.
In fact, the whole battle itself, outside of a few nice moments (like when Enterprise circles around Discovery to take as many ramming drones as possible for it) is pretty much based on "cool-looking but incredibly stupid and accomplishing nothing". Lots of drones and shuttles that keep exploding and respawning (you're not gonna convince me otherwise with all those explosions happening), phasers fired to zero effects (except when the queen demonstrates how the drones shielding works (which in the end accomplishes nothing to help) and when Burnham does her little flight surrounded by drones and shuttles (another stupid move too, as The Last Jedi showed), Enterprise and Discovery just staying surrounded by a circle of ships (not a SPHERE, a CIRCLE... in space! Just fly upwards or downwards, bloody hell!) and Control transferring all its consciousness into Leland only, so it gets killed and the rest of the fleet is instantly disabled.
The only time she really got hammered was when that torpedo slammed into her forward saucer. A Torpedo, I might add, that was specifically designed to pierce the hull and detonate inside. A dedicated ship killer. ANY ship from ANY era would have taken heavy damage from that kind of attack. Hell... armor piercing weapons are a thing today, and are one of the primary ways to attack a modern tank. Pierce the hull and damage the interior.
The part with the torpedo was incredibly stupid.
On one hand this thing bypasses shields all together and manages to bury itself into the hull. Fair so far, Section 31 has a lot of cool gadgets with tech above the common one in the Trekverse (even if some are utterly ridiculous like the gadgets Georgiou uses to rescue Tyler and L'Rell), so an armor piercing torpedo dedicated to pierce through a ship and detonate inside it for massive damage is a good concept for such an organization.
But then, this thing has a big secondary(?) timer of FIFTEEN minutes and obviously (though clearly accidentally on the writer's part) unleashes all its payload at just one side of it. I mean, Pike is nearly at POINT-BLANK range just behind a blast door (with a massive window, because why not?) and all he gets is some flashing light in his eyes while 1/5th of the saucer hull in front of him is vaporized. The door doesn't even get distorted or anything and Cornwell just gets some breeze on her and is engulfed in flames.
In fact, the whole battle itself, outside of a few nice moments (like when Enterprise circles around Discovery to take as many ramming drones as possible for it) is pretty much based on "cool-looking but incredibly stupid and accomplishing nothing". Lots of drones and shuttles that keep exploding and respawning (you're not gonna convince me otherwise with all those explosions happening), phasers fired to zero effects (except when the queen demonstrates how the drones shielding works (which in the end accomplishes nothing to help) and when Burnham does her little flight surrounded by drones and shuttles (another stupid move too, as The Last Jedi showed), Enterprise and Discovery just staying surrounded by a circle of ships (not a SPHERE, a CIRCLE... in space! Just fly upwards or downwards, bloody hell!) and Control transferring all its consciousness into Leland only, so it gets killed and the rest of the fleet is instantly disabled.
This is what happens when you give *back then* 40 something year old franchise, to a studio created in 2014, with no prior experience on making a Tv show or understanding science fiction in general.
This is what happens when you give *back then* 40 something year old franchise, to a studio created in 2014, with no prior experience on making a Tv show or understanding science fiction in general.
So like most Star Trek which has always leaned more heavily on science-fantasy then actual hard science fiction.
Actually, most of the sci-fantasy elements in TOS were because censorship issues of the time or budget problems.
NBC had fits over the dart guns the show was originally going to use (because of drugs), then had even worse fits when they heard Star Trek would show burn wounds from lasers and insisted that they do something bloodless like kiddie westerns where the person hit just grabs the area and falls down. Roddenberry did not want to do that so they turned to disintegrator weapons instead (the phaser).
The Transporter came about because the cost of building a planet surface miniature every week to land a shuttle on would eat too much of the budget. The triple head compositors of the time could handle ships in space fairly well and things like beam weapons either in space or the ground, but trying to fly a shuttle in atmosphere without it looking totally fake was so difficult and took so many tries to get enough of the flaws out to not look silly that it was likewise too expensive to consider.
And just travelling faster than light is the biggest science fantasy element in the show, but without that there would be no show so fantastical or not it had to be in there just like it is is in practically all space science fiction.
It originally did rather well in the science end of things compared to any other interstellar sci-fi show of the time. Sure, they made mistakes, like the classic problem that writers usually have no concept of the distances in space, but even many serious science fiction novel authors do the same thing.
Unfortunately, the movie era ushered in more fantasy elements, often borrowed from Star Wars, like the airplanes in space style maneuvering at sublight. And yes, TOS turned even sharper than that but got around the problem by the fact that they were almost never on impulse drive (out of 79 episodes they only used impulse at all in less than a half dozen of them) and warp drive did not have physics limitations like momentum so they could make those hairpin turns without violating natural laws any more than just being in warp in the first place did.
However, even with the movie elements and the Berman stuff (like the handwavum particles and whatnot) Star Trek was "harder" than most TV sci-fi, which tended to go with Flash Gordon / Star Wars style extra-soft space opera. Kelvin Trek and DSC were the ones which took it over the edge into full out space fantasy. Kurtzman seems to have trouble distinguishing between science fiction that borders on space opera and Fast and Furious style action hero movies. The rule of cool reigns supreme in CBS Trek and overrides any consideration of speculative plausibility.
Actually, most of the sci-fantasy elements in TOS were because censorship issues of the time or budget problems.
that doesn't change the fact thats the way it was.
Kirk was frequently running into any number of "magical" god like beings that were far more fitting in a fantasy series then a scifi one, and TNG solved pretty much every science problem with science ignoring technobabble that would make anyone who actually knows anything about science cringe.
None of it ever really worked, or made sense. IT was all just turn your brain off nonsense. Star Trek never existed for hard science, or even believable science, it existed for mortality plays.
True, the emphasis was on analogy and Roddenberry was a fan of the "trickster" folktales where the hero or heroine had to get clever and trick an all-powerful foe instead of just beat it senseless, but the point is the older Treks did make at least some effort to use real theories when possible.
You would be surprised how much serious science fiction has elements of fantasy in them explained as some odd form of science. Often writers take folktales and popular fantasy elements and rework them into science fiction.
And all that aside, the fact still remains that the Kelvin and DSC Trek are far more in the realm of fantasy than the preceding ones.
Actually, most of the sci-fantasy elements in TOS were because censorship issues of the time or budget problems.
that doesn't change the fact thats the way it was.
Kirk was frequently running into any number of "magical" god like beings that were far more fitting in a fantasy series then a scifi one, and TNG solved pretty much every science problem with science ignoring technobabble that would make anyone who actually knows anything about science cringe.
None of it ever really worked, or made sense. IT was all just turn your brain off nonsense. Star Trek never existed for hard science, or even believable science, it existed for mortality plays.
True, the emphasis was on analogy and Roddenberry was a fan of the "trickster" folktales where the hero or heroine had to get clever and trick an all-powerful foe instead of just beat it senseless, but the point is the older Treks did make at least some effort to use real theories when possible.
You would be surprised how much serious science fiction has elements of fantasy in them explained as some odd form of science. Often writers take folktales and popular fantasy elements and rework them into science fiction.
And all that aside, the fact still remains that the Kelvin and DSC Trek are far more in the realm of fantasy than the preceding ones.
The creators were more into the Star Wars genre than the science nature of Trek...
The Transporter came about because the cost of building a planet surface miniature every week to land a shuttle on would eat too much of the budget. The triple head compositors of the time could handle ships in space fairly well and things like beam weapons either in space or the ground, but trying to fly a shuttle in atmosphere without it looking totally fake was so difficult and took so many tries to get enough of the flaws out to not look silly that it was likewise too expensive to consider.
GR didn't want to just land a Shuttle; the idea was that the saucer section primary hull would separate and land on a planet each week (much like the landing sequence done for the 1956 film "Forbidden Planet").
^^^
The cost of doing this on a weekly basis was considered prohibitive - and even if they did a stock shot and used a different background plate; it would end up looking more repetitive then the reused planet orbit shots they had each week.
^^^
This was pretty much the ONLY reason that in the 1987 pilot; GR had, and showed the 1701-D doing a Saucer Separation and re-connection...he now had the budget and clout to get what he originally wanted in 1964 on the air and in the show in 1987. Of course it was so ridiculous, that even the writers only showed it two more times after the pilot in the entire 7 season run; (and in BoBW BITH Riker and Picard thought it was a bad idea, unless things REALLY got desperate; and in the end Riker only did it as a decoy to try and hide Data and Worf's shuttle approached; and that really didn't even work that well as Data and Worf had to cut power to avoid detection anyway.)
But yes, it is true that 'The Transporter came about as a quicker and cheaper (less expensive optical effect) way to get characters
from the ship to a planet surface - although it often required characters to suddenly go into 'the idiot box' (IE forget thy could be beamed out if something really hit the fan); OR a sometimes ridiculous external reason the Transporter couldn't be used to beam someone back and out of a bad situation <--- and both were used interchangeably across all Star Trek series.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
The Transporter came about because the cost of building a planet surface miniature every week to land a shuttle on would eat too much of the budget. The triple head compositors of the time could handle ships in space fairly well and things like beam weapons either in space or the ground, but trying to fly a shuttle in atmosphere without it looking totally fake was so difficult and took so many tries to get enough of the flaws out to not look silly that it was likewise too expensive to consider.
GR didn't want to just land a Shuttle; the idea was that the saucer section primary hull would separate and land on a planet each week (much like the landing sequence done for the 1956 film "Forbidden Planet").
^^^
The cost of doing this on a weekly basis was considered prohibitive - and even if they did a stock shot and used a different background plate; it would end up looking more repetitive then the reused planet orbit shots they had each week.
^^^
This was pretty much the ONLY reason that in the 1987 pilot; GR had, and showed the 1701-D doing a Saucer Separation and re-connection...he now had the budget and clout to get what he originally wanted in 1964 on the air and in the show in 1987. Of course it was so ridiculous, that even the writers only showed it two more times after the pilot in the entire 7 season run; (and in BoBW BITH Riker and Picard thought it was a bad idea, unless things REALLY got desperate; and in the end Riker only did it as a decoy to try and hide Data and Worf's shuttle approached; and that really didn't even work that well as Data and Worf had to cut power to avoid detection anyway.)
But yes, it is true that 'The Transporter came about as a quicker and cheaper (less expensive optical effect) way to get characters
from the ship to a planet surface - although it often required characters to suddenly go into 'the idiot box' (IE forget thy could be beamed out if something really hit the fan); OR a sometimes ridiculous external reason the Transporter couldn't be used to beam someone back and out of a bad situation <--- and both were used interchangeably across all Star Trek series.
The 'reason' saucer seperation didn't happen more in TNG was cost, not because it was ridiculous. It would have been ridiculous only if they did it everytime they were in a fight......which they most often were not. It would only have been major conflict they would have done this, had it not been for cost. You can see why it was costly, even for the 80's/90's by watching how they made the scene of the Saucer section crash-landing on Veridian III.
"You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
Saucer separation was treated mostly as an emergency measure. Either in a desperate fight, like against the Borg, or for use as a means for escape, like in Generations.
The saucer itself may not have been warp capable, but, if it had not been disabled by the destruction of the stardrive section, the saucer would have been fully capable of maneuvering on its own at sublight, fight if necessary, and have access to long range communications. Starfleet could have easily had another Galaxy class separate its saucer to retrieve Enterprise-D's saucer and bring it back to Sol System or the nearest Starbase.
If I remember correctly abut the Connie saucer separation... it was also meant to be an emergency measure as they used explosive bolts to detatch the saucer, and it would require a shipyard facility to reattach.
The only time we actually see a Connie saucer separation, was actually in Star Trek Beyond.
It was mentioned in 'The Apple'. The final episode of 'Star Trek Continues' ('To Boldly Go, Part 2) showed it around 18:10. We can infer something of it from 'The Doomsday Machine' with the Battle Bridge.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
It was mentioned in 'The Apple'. The final episode of 'Star Trek Continues' ('To Boldly Go, Part 2) showed it around 18:10. We can infer something of it from 'The Doomsday Machine' with the Battle Bridge.
In TOS there was no 'Battle Bridge' - it was 'Auxiliary Control' and yes, it was a backup Bridge deep inside the ship in case the main bridge became damaged/uninhabitable.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
We don't know if the Discovery Constitution Refit brought crew size from 207 to 429 or it was one post-Discovery.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
More likely Roddenberry's idea was that the shuttles represented the pair of scout/utility seaplanes most of those battleships carried on rail catapults in WWII or the helicopters that they carried in the Gulf war. In WWII they generally had two planes ready for use and several replacements broken down in storage which could be assembled and readied to replace losses (I am not sure if they had spare compacted helicopters since it would be easy to just fly one over from a carrier or land base nowadays with aerial refueling).
If you compare the shuttlebay with the shuttles, the TOS Enterprise could have only comfortably handled three or four Galileo type shuttles in fly-ready condition at the very most, or two of the bigger shuttles that Jefferies originally designed the bay for nose-to-tail with just about a hallway's worth of walking space around them. There is no way they could have supported several squadrons like they do in DSC even without the additional "workpods" Number One had loaded in (which itself is against Jefferies idea that everything was reparable from inside without the use of EVA pods and whatnot).
I wasn't trying to debate what original ideas were. I'm just saying that as she is the same class, she would have the same capabilities. Weither its used or not is up to the Captain. Hell... the only reason Enterprise had those tactical flyers was probably because they're still coming off a VERY recent war, so they're maintaining at least a higher level of readiness or something. As for workpods... they're useful for a lot more than repairing external damage. They can be used to effect repairs on other things like satellites or other ships, and could be used for cargo transfers if Transporters aren't available. Things can have more than one use. And realistically... being able to effect external repairs as well as internal is a bit more realistic than all internal, especailly in the case of a hull breach.
But again we're trying to compare original intent based on 1960s knoweldge and capabilities vs today's knowledge and capabilities. Its kinda hard to do that without stepping on someone's toes in terms of what should and shouldn't be. All of which is, honestly, a matter of opinion for whoever is discussing it. Some may say it MUST be this way, while others may say there's room for more.
It has nothing to do with "1960s knowledge and capabilities", only with intent and designs of the ships.
Originally Jefferies designed the TOS hero ship (it was not even called "Enterprise" at this point) to be 540 feet in length, with the bridge taking up the entire teardrop shaped bumpout, and drew up the plans at a standard 1:48 scale. Then Roddenberry went with the name "Enterprise" and decided it would be good to have the starship the same length as the WWII carrier Enterprise, so Jefferies fiddled with the numbers a bit an came up with 1:85 scale which was close enough though a bit odd, but Roddenberry was firm about the size and would not approve the more common 1:96 scale (which would have made the ship 1,080 feet in length (close to the fanon alternate length of 1074 feet) which was ironically about the length of the TMP Enterprise). It was all noted on the blueprints the shooting models were made from, the 1:48 scratched out and 1:85 written in.
The Enterprise in Discovery is officially slightly larger according to interviews of the people involved in the show though they don't give the exact length in meters or feet, just the fact that they had to scale it up to fit in with the other DSC ships properly. Fan estimates assuming that it has the same 22 decks and the shuttlebay doors are the same size as the original run approximately 376.4 meters or 1,234 feet according to fan measurements though of course that is not canon.
Anyway, the size difference openly talked about by Kurtzman would make it difficult to justify it being the same ship since the nacelle strut sweepback can only account for so much of the difference. It makes DSC look like it is not precisely the same timeline as TOS, which is not too farfetched considering everyone and their dog has been mucking around with time travel.
Actually, most of the sci-fantasy elements in TOS were because censorship issues of the time or budget problems.
that doesn't change the fact thats the way it was.
Kirk was frequently running into any number of "magical" god like beings that were far more fitting in a fantasy series then a scifi one, and TNG solved pretty much every science problem with science ignoring technobabble that would make anyone who actually knows anything about science cringe.
None of it ever really worked, or made sense. IT was all just turn your brain off nonsense. Star Trek never existed for hard science, or even believable science, it existed for mortality plays.
True, the emphasis was on analogy and Roddenberry was a fan of the "trickster" folktales where the hero or heroine had to get clever and trick an all-powerful foe instead of just beat it senseless, but the point is the older Treks did make at least some effort to use real theories when possible.
You would be surprised how much serious science fiction has elements of fantasy in them explained as some odd form of science. Often writers take folktales and popular fantasy elements and rework them into science fiction.
And all that aside, the fact still remains that the Kelvin and DSC Trek are far more in the realm of fantasy than the preceding ones.
The creators were more into the Star Wars genre than the science nature of Trek...
Star Wars is of a genre called Space Opera, rather than Science Fiction. The heavy emphasis on royalty and nobility is a dead give-away. And The Force itself is blatantly magical. Midichlorians my @55.
We can argue about how much of Star Trek fell into that category.
You know... we also have to consider that the USS Defiant was notorious for magic size changes from scene to scene. And a rather blatant instance of magic size changing is in the '09 Star Trek. One scene has shuttles coming in like 2 at a time into the shuttlebay, then the next scene we see the SAME class of shuttle barely have room to clear the bay doors by itself.
You know... we also have to consider that the USS Defiant was notorious for magic size changes from scene to scene. And a rather blatant instance of magic size changing is in the '09 Star Trek. One scene has shuttles coming in like 2 at a time into the shuttlebay, then the next scene we see the SAME class of shuttle barely have room to clear the bay doors by itself.
Ah...methinks to hear that it was the wonkie side on using CGI, and there wasn't a physical model to reference directly. So, hence the flip flopping.
Actually... Defiant DID have a physical model. DS9 was still in the era of physical models until later in the show's run, and the Defiant was brought in during season 3.
Comments
On one hand this thing bypasses shields all together and manages to bury itself into the hull. Fair so far, Section 31 has a lot of cool gadgets with tech above the common one in the Trekverse (even if some are utterly ridiculous like the gadgets Georgiou uses to rescue Tyler and L'Rell), so an armor piercing torpedo dedicated to pierce through a ship and detonate inside it for massive damage is a good concept for such an organization.
But then, this thing has a big secondary(?) timer of FIFTEEN minutes and obviously (though clearly accidentally on the writer's part) unleashes all its payload at just one side of it. I mean, Pike is nearly at POINT-BLANK range just behind a blast door (with a massive window, because why not?) and all he gets is some flashing light in his eyes while 1/5th of the saucer hull in front of him is vaporized. The door doesn't even get distorted or anything and Cornwell just gets some breeze on her and is engulfed in flames.
In fact, the whole battle itself, outside of a few nice moments (like when Enterprise circles around Discovery to take as many ramming drones as possible for it) is pretty much based on "cool-looking but incredibly stupid and accomplishing nothing". Lots of drones and shuttles that keep exploding and respawning (you're not gonna convince me otherwise with all those explosions happening), phasers fired to zero effects (except when the queen demonstrates how the drones shielding works (which in the end accomplishes nothing to help) and when Burnham does her little flight surrounded by drones and shuttles (another stupid move too, as The Last Jedi showed), Enterprise and Discovery just staying surrounded by a circle of ships (not a SPHERE, a CIRCLE... in space! Just fly upwards or downwards, bloody hell!) and Control transferring all its consciousness into Leland only, so it gets killed and the rest of the fleet is instantly disabled.
This is what happens when you give *back then* 40 something year old franchise, to a studio created in 2014, with no prior experience on making a Tv show or understanding science fiction in general.
Actually, most of the sci-fantasy elements in TOS were because censorship issues of the time or budget problems.
NBC had fits over the dart guns the show was originally going to use (because of drugs), then had even worse fits when they heard Star Trek would show burn wounds from lasers and insisted that they do something bloodless like kiddie westerns where the person hit just grabs the area and falls down. Roddenberry did not want to do that so they turned to disintegrator weapons instead (the phaser).
The Transporter came about because the cost of building a planet surface miniature every week to land a shuttle on would eat too much of the budget. The triple head compositors of the time could handle ships in space fairly well and things like beam weapons either in space or the ground, but trying to fly a shuttle in atmosphere without it looking totally fake was so difficult and took so many tries to get enough of the flaws out to not look silly that it was likewise too expensive to consider.
And just travelling faster than light is the biggest science fantasy element in the show, but without that there would be no show so fantastical or not it had to be in there just like it is is in practically all space science fiction.
It originally did rather well in the science end of things compared to any other interstellar sci-fi show of the time. Sure, they made mistakes, like the classic problem that writers usually have no concept of the distances in space, but even many serious science fiction novel authors do the same thing.
Unfortunately, the movie era ushered in more fantasy elements, often borrowed from Star Wars, like the airplanes in space style maneuvering at sublight. And yes, TOS turned even sharper than that but got around the problem by the fact that they were almost never on impulse drive (out of 79 episodes they only used impulse at all in less than a half dozen of them) and warp drive did not have physics limitations like momentum so they could make those hairpin turns without violating natural laws any more than just being in warp in the first place did.
However, even with the movie elements and the Berman stuff (like the handwavum particles and whatnot) Star Trek was "harder" than most TV sci-fi, which tended to go with Flash Gordon / Star Wars style extra-soft space opera. Kelvin Trek and DSC were the ones which took it over the edge into full out space fantasy. Kurtzman seems to have trouble distinguishing between science fiction that borders on space opera and Fast and Furious style action hero movies. The rule of cool reigns supreme in CBS Trek and overrides any consideration of speculative plausibility.
True, the emphasis was on analogy and Roddenberry was a fan of the "trickster" folktales where the hero or heroine had to get clever and trick an all-powerful foe instead of just beat it senseless, but the point is the older Treks did make at least some effort to use real theories when possible.
You would be surprised how much serious science fiction has elements of fantasy in them explained as some odd form of science. Often writers take folktales and popular fantasy elements and rework them into science fiction.
And all that aside, the fact still remains that the Kelvin and DSC Trek are far more in the realm of fantasy than the preceding ones.
The creators were more into the Star Wars genre than the science nature of Trek...
GR didn't want to just land a Shuttle; the idea was that the saucer section primary hull would separate and land on a planet each week (much like the landing sequence done for the 1956 film "Forbidden Planet").
^^^
The cost of doing this on a weekly basis was considered prohibitive - and even if they did a stock shot and used a different background plate; it would end up looking more repetitive then the reused planet orbit shots they had each week.
^^^
This was pretty much the ONLY reason that in the 1987 pilot; GR had, and showed the 1701-D doing a Saucer Separation and re-connection...he now had the budget and clout to get what he originally wanted in 1964 on the air and in the show in 1987. Of course it was so ridiculous, that even the writers only showed it two more times after the pilot in the entire 7 season run; (and in BoBW BITH Riker and Picard thought it was a bad idea, unless things REALLY got desperate; and in the end Riker only did it as a decoy to try and hide Data and Worf's shuttle approached; and that really didn't even work that well as Data and Worf had to cut power to avoid detection anyway.)
But yes, it is true that 'The Transporter came about as a quicker and cheaper (less expensive optical effect) way to get characters
from the ship to a planet surface - although it often required characters to suddenly go into 'the idiot box' (IE forget thy could be beamed out if something really hit the fan); OR a sometimes ridiculous external reason the Transporter couldn't be used to beam someone back and out of a bad situation <--- and both were used interchangeably across all Star Trek series.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
The 'reason' saucer seperation didn't happen more in TNG was cost, not because it was ridiculous. It would have been ridiculous only if they did it everytime they were in a fight......which they most often were not. It would only have been major conflict they would have done this, had it not been for cost. You can see why it was costly, even for the 80's/90's by watching how they made the scene of the Saucer section crash-landing on Veridian III.
The saucer itself may not have been warp capable, but, if it had not been disabled by the destruction of the stardrive section, the saucer would have been fully capable of maneuvering on its own at sublight, fight if necessary, and have access to long range communications. Starfleet could have easily had another Galaxy class separate its saucer to retrieve Enterprise-D's saucer and bring it back to Sol System or the nearest Starbase.
If I remember correctly abut the Connie saucer separation... it was also meant to be an emergency measure as they used explosive bolts to detatch the saucer, and it would require a shipyard facility to reattach.
The only time we actually see a Connie saucer separation, was actually in Star Trek Beyond.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
In TOS there was no 'Battle Bridge' - it was 'Auxiliary Control' and yes, it was a backup Bridge deep inside the ship in case the main bridge became damaged/uninhabitable.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Not just cost, but also manpower.
The studio-model required quite a few people to just re-position and there wasn't always enough staff available for that.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Star Wars is of a genre called Space Opera, rather than Science Fiction. The heavy emphasis on royalty and nobility is a dead give-away. And The Force itself is blatantly magical. Midichlorians my @55.
We can argue about how much of Star Trek fell into that category.
Ah...methinks to hear that it was the wonkie side on using CGI, and there wasn't a physical model to reference directly. So, hence the flip flopping.