NEMESIS:Does the 1701-E have a Battle Bridge?
- Thread starter Galileo7
- Start date
Depends how you want to interpret things; but short answer is yes - if you want to play it that way.
I seem to remember seeing a John Eaves sketch showing the Sovy in a separated configuration. If that were the case then one or other section would logically be "the battle section" and the command centre of that would be "the battle bridge."
Most things on the Enterprise are multiply redundant. All versions of the series have shown multiple command centres. It's quite logical to expect that one of these is dedicated to battle systems or battle control. That, no doubt, would at least colloquially, be referred to as the "battle bridge."
Failing that: the bridge we're used to seeing is the bridge they use for battles so surely *that's* the battle bridge?
dje
I seem to remember seeing a John Eaves sketch showing the Sovy in a separated configuration. If that were the case then one or other section would logically be "the battle section" and the command centre of that would be "the battle bridge."
Most things on the Enterprise are multiply redundant. All versions of the series have shown multiple command centres. It's quite logical to expect that one of these is dedicated to battle systems or battle control. That, no doubt, would at least colloquially, be referred to as the "battle bridge."
Failing that: the bridge we're used to seeing is the bridge they use for battles so surely *that's* the battle bridge?
dje
Wasn't the purpose of calling it a battle bridge because of the large civilian population on the D, so before combat the D was to seperate to protect the civilian population, thus the bridge of the non-saucer section being the "battle" bridge from which most combat was supposed to occur?
I don't believe the E has a large civilian population, being a more martial vessel, so it would not be expected to seperate before battle, so the second bridge would be more like TOS' auxiliary controls, a back up command centre in case something happened to the primary bridge - or , as the poster above said, if the ship had to seperate for some other reason, assuming it has that capability.
I don't believe the E has a large civilian population, being a more martial vessel, so it would not be expected to seperate before battle, so the second bridge would be more like TOS' auxiliary controls, a back up command centre in case something happened to the primary bridge - or , as the poster above said, if the ship had to seperate for some other reason, assuming it has that capability.
It was never needed since we never saw the Enterprise-E perform saucer separation. That doesn't necessarily mean that she didn't have a battle bridge or was incapable of saucer separation, but we just never saw either onscreen. And really, saucer separation really shouldn't be considered a standard battle tactic, but more as a measure of last resort, IMO.
Last edited:
It would be ideal as an emergency backup to the main bridge. It'd probably would otherwise be auxiliary control.
Yes, that is what might have happened in Nemesis if the film had continued for another act after the 1701-E Bridge had been damaged with the forcefield in place.
Perhaps. But that forcefield may have been the only reason they didn't go to a battle bridge/backup bridge. Despite the structural damage and the loss of a crewmember to vacuum, the main bridge was still otherwise operational and habitable with that containment forcefield. The ship's shuttlebay operates the exact same way during regular launch and recovery operations.
*sings*
There will be no more isolation
In our saucer separation
You touched the fleet so deeply, you rescued me
Now free me
I never liked the 1701E very much, but I have to admit that the main portion looks pretty cool without the saucer.
I always figured they were the same thing. Just gave the "D" the snazzy battle bridge moniker because it sounded cool.
I read once that one of the many deleted bits in Nemesis (and one that didn't make it onto the DVD special features) would have clarified the E couldn't separate, how true that is and to what extent it would trump the design sketches if it is I don't know.
It's actually surprising how little the D Battle Bridge was used, even without separation you'd think it would be be the place to go when they lost control of the main bridge, but engineering was always the first choice secondary command centre. It's especially notable in Brothers, just a couple of episodes after they spent a bit of money renovating the Battle Bridge set and it would be a sensible reuse, they still go to engineering when Data takes over the ship. You get the feeling the production crew really didn't like that set.
It's actually surprising how little the D Battle Bridge was used, even without separation you'd think it would be be the place to go when they lost control of the main bridge, but engineering was always the first choice secondary command centre. It's especially notable in Brothers, just a couple of episodes after they spent a bit of money renovating the Battle Bridge set and it would be a sensible reuse, they still go to engineering when Data takes over the ship. You get the feeling the production crew really didn't like that set.
No, they did like the set. They liked it a lot, in fact. It's exactly WHY we didn't usually see the Ent-D's battle bridge: that set had to be constantly re-used as a lot of OTHER bridges.
On designs that don't have saucer separation capability, it's probably still called auxiliary control. But depending on what version of the original Enterprise layout you subscribe to, some have auxiliary control still within the saucer section, but located several decks lower.
I can't imagine that Starfleet Regs would say "It's okay to keep the majority of the command crew on the main bridge during combat conditions as long as there's a single forcefield keeping them from being sucked into space." We've certainly seen our ships in combat situations where internal forcefields were compromised.
I prefer to think the crew didn't transfer command because there wasn't time to and the bridge was compromised but not destroyed. Though it's been so long since I've seen NEM that I can't say whether that's particularly accurate.
The same can be said for the hull in general, though.
But a forcefield/containment field could actually be made up of multiple layers the same way a warp field is. Shuttlebay crews don't seem to have a problem with the bay doors being open while shuttles are departing/arriving, so it's not unreasonable to think that Starfleet personnel are okay with an atmospheric forcefield in place for a while.
There were a couple of instances when the bridge could have been evacuated during the engagement with the Scimitar, but wasn't (most notably following the collision between the two ships). That would kind of reinforce the above idea that the crew was okay with the atmospheric forcefield for the moment.
Last edited:
I think I also read a comment somewhere that the Enterprise-E doesn't separate. Maybe someone came up with that because it hasn't been done on screen. Some people think that way. If someone in the production thought of it to serve a story, I'm glad that they didn't ultimately go in that direction.
Only in the scenario where the non-saucer part of the ship is supposed to do battle.
We know this is the case for the Galaxy class. We have no reason to think this would be true of the Sovereign class: in a separation maneuver, there would be no visible impulse engines on the non-saucer part, leaving her hopelessly crippled. We can of course postulate hidden impulse engines, but we could then just as well postulate hidden warp engines on the saucer (after all, the E-D had some) and declare the saucer bridge the Battle Bridge.
Also, the heroes don't tend to be particularly concerned with self-survival. Here they even explicitly swear to die rather than let Shinzon triumph! Why evacuate when destruction appears imminent anyway and there's literally nothing to lose (since their lives are forfeit already)?
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
