Galaxy Should be Buildable

[kainalu]

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 11:19 pm

Last edited by kainalu on December 23rd, 2011, 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

All of these ships were extremely large and heavily armed. Pride of their fleets. Most sank simply because of that. At lease one was so damn big that the WIND sunk it on it's maiden voyage. Big does not mean strong or good structural integrity.

See :

Tegetthoff class battleship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)
Japanese battleship Yamato - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
German battleship Bismarck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE BIGGER THEY ARE, THE HARDER THEY FALL.

I love the galaxy. I think it is a great ship, very capable, and it would be astonishing to see a biiig gleaming white ship in space like that. It would also be the very biggest target in space. It is 50 years old now (about), and there are newer frames that were built with fighting in mind.

Now, unless someone quotes me, with intentions on me answering them, I'm bowing out. this is getting silly.

posted on December 23rd, 2011, 11:58 pm

"Space = sea" isn't a very apt comparison. There are few if any outside forces acting against a vessel in space, and they are held together by what are essentially magic bubbles. Size. frankly, doesn't matter at all - unless you take cost into account, which was the crux of Nebby's argument.

posted on December 24th, 2011, 12:19 am

extreme gravity fields, solar radiation, subspace this-and-that, warp speed, weapons fire. Seems very forceful to me...

You think EARTH has strong gravity? HAH!!!

The only way our probes don't disintegrate is they don't go far, or close to dangerous gravity fields.

posted on December 24th, 2011, 12:31 am

All of these ships were extremely large and heavily armed. Pride of their fleets. Most sank simply because of that. At lease one was so damn big that the WIND sunk it on it's maiden voyage. Big does not mean strong or good structural integrity.

See :

Tegetthoff class battleship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)
Japanese battleship Yamato - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
German battleship Bismarck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE BIGGER THEY ARE, THE HARDER THEY FALL.

I love the galaxy. I think it is a great ship, very capable, and it would be astonishing to see a biiig gleaming white ship in space like that. It would also be the very biggest target in space. It is 50 years old now (about), and there are newer frames that were built with fighting in mind.

Now, unless someone quotes me, with intentions on me answering them, I'm bowing out. this is getting silly.

I fail to see how any of these are examples of why Galaxy should see improvement or greater use. As for Galaxy being 50 years old How did you get that number. I am oppereating under the assumption that the date is some time around 2380. Is that not the case?

posted on December 24th, 2011, 12:35 am

Sorry dude, it isn't real life. I only put so much thought into stardates and commission dates of imaginary ships. I was just speaking from a classic warship and physics sense. {ducks}

Please also remember Fleetops is in the "future" by about 20-25 years from the end of the Dominion Wars.

[Nebula_Class_Ftw]

posted on December 24th, 2011, 4:16 am

Last edited by Nebula_Class_Ftw on December 24th, 2011, 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

So let me get this straight the entier crux of your argument is that just because you have not seen a model year 2380 Galaxy fresh out of the yard on screen they don't exist. I Seriouly Logic dictates that just like any real world Navy SF would not manufactur 20 year old parts for a new ship when newer better parts are sitting on the shelf. Oh and News flash FO IS an Expanded Universe so my arguments for a modern upto date Galaxy are completely appropreate.  If you are going to build one, build the right one.

Not seeing them on screen actually is a pretty big argument for them not existing. New Galaxy class starships were never mentioned nor seen, so we hav no evidence of them. We hav to infer whether or not the show's writers meant for the Galaxy class to be built into the 2380s. Quite frankly, the replacement of the Sovereign and the radical refits to the existing Galaxies point strongly to the writers abandoning the Galaxy class, which was the entire reason they blew up the Enterprise in Generations, making way for the cooler-looking Sovereign that felt new and powerful.

FO's universe is not hugely different from the show canon. Events don't even diverge until Voyager is well on its way home.

Look again. While I might be infering some numbers like extact tonage based on known addition equipment memory alpha ceirtainly supports the statement the Galaxies systems are every bit as upto date as Prometheus or Soverign.

More tonnage means nothing except more weight to pull with your engines, more tritanium to mine, more systems onboard, more area to shield, and more wrekkage to clean up. I think this has been stated already in less clear ways.
I very much doubt that refitting old equipment that was designed for old tech will be better than making a new design that incorporates the new tech from the start. Even if they could refit them to be just as good as new systems, that is a lot of resources and effort used. It also can cause danger as the new and old might not interact correctly.
Whether or not a Venture refit can keep up with a Sovvy, the fact is that you don't make new designs yet then turn around and build old designs with refits included during construction. That's building an old, inferior, design when you hav better options. Makes no sense. And if the Sovvy isn't a better option, why did they build Sovvies?

posted on December 24th, 2011, 5:39 am

Guys, you're all blithering idiots, the Constitution MKIIVIVIXCX is the most awesome ship that Starfleet has ever known. With armament equal to the Sovereign and Galaxy put together, how could you not say that it is the Federation's secret weapon? You know why of course so few have heard of it - it's simply so important that it is only used in the most dire situations of all. It repelled at least 30 Cubes in the Battle of Sector 002,3,4 AND 5, and I'm talking it barely even had its shields damaged.

We all know that Starfleet refits its ships ad infinitum, and the Constitution was no exception. Once the flagship of the fleet, it's now known as the deadly armored spear of the fleet. It's been refitted with the most modern armor, weapons, and shielding known to any Federation ship - after all, why would Starfleet go with another ship when it could just refit the strongest, most capable ship over and over?

posted on December 24th, 2011, 6:46 am

Guys, you're all blithering idiots, the Constitution MKIIVIVIXCX is the most awesome ship that Starfleet has ever known. With armament equal to the Sovereign and Galaxy put together, how could you not say that it is the Federation's secret weapon? You know why of course so few have heard of it - it's simply so important that it is only used in the most dire situations of all. It repelled at least 30 Cubes in the Battle of Sector 002,3,4 AND 5, and I'm talking it barely even had its shields damaged.

We all know that Starfleet refits its ships ad infinitum, and the Constitution was no exception. Once the flagship of the fleet, it's now known as the deadly armored spear of the fleet. It's been refitted with the most modern armor, weapons, and shielding known to any Federation ship - after all, why would Starfleet go with another ship when it could just refit the strongest, most capable ship over and over?

nx-01 mark 385? Now with hexacobalt torpedoes and quantum racks? oh and quad hyperspace pulses?

posted on December 24th, 2011, 9:51 am

Glad that argument has been put to rest.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 24th, 2011, 11:05 am

Last edited by Anonymous on December 24th, 2011, 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

You know, we can sit here all day and debate over why it is, or isn't worth it to build the Galaxy class. Why a Sovereign or Prometheus is X times better than a Galaxy because it's got superior technology. But in the end, I'd basically want it to be buildable because it's a TNG fav of mine.

Moreover, from what we've seen on tv (TNG, DS9), I think the Galaxy is still quite a capable ship despite all of the trek inconsistancies like in "Rascals" and "Generations." It was the largest and most powerful class of the TNG era, and the Enterprise-D was the Federation flagship for 7 years. It performed exploration, diplomatic, and military operations until it's unfortunate demise in Generations. Being blown up by a 20 year old D-12 BOP was a croc of chit, to begin with (thanks Rick Berman). Like people have been saying, what happens on screen is just to fit the story. It doesn't prove a darn thing statistically about the Galaxy or any other ship. If the Galaxy was that much of a powder puff, enemies of the Federation would have overrun them during the Enterprise-D's run.

I mean if you want to say the Galaxy was never meant for war, you may as well say that about all the Federation ships. Remember,  starfleet's primary mission was exploration and research. Most of their ships were built around this idea as platforms that could perform a variety of roles.

They had defensive systems, but none of em were ever really designed truly for combat as opposed to other races. Races like the Klingons, Romulans, and Breen. Their ships we're designed specifically for domination and conquest.

So I'd like to see the Galaxy be buildable for good old times sake, and it's not just the Galaxy. It's for all the old favorites like the Nebula and Excelsior. And speaking of old favs, where the hell is the Miranda class? 

posted on December 24th, 2011, 11:09 am

No clue what Dom is talking about LOLOLOL 

posted on December 24th, 2011, 11:13 am

Hey Optec, I'd also like to request a buildable Oberth class with Type XII phaser arrays, cloaking technology, and tri-cobalt torpedoes. Hmmm, what else??? Oh yeah, armor plating would be nice too. Would that be too much to ask for to go with a standard buildable Galaxy? 

[MrXT]

posted on December 24th, 2011, 1:37 pm

Last edited by MrXT on December 24th, 2011, 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

All of these ships were extremely large and heavily armed. Pride of their fleets. Most sank simply because of that. At lease one was so damn big that the WIND sunk it on it's maiden voyage. Big does not mean strong or good structural integrity.

See :

Tegetthoff class battleship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)
Japanese battleship Yamato - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
German battleship Bismarck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE BIGGER THEY ARE, THE HARDER THEY FALL.

I love the galaxy. I think it is a great ship, very capable, and it would be astonishing to see a biiig gleaming white ship in space like that. It would also be the very biggest target in space. It is 50 years old now (about), and there are newer frames that were built with fighting in mind.

Now, unless someone quotes me, with intentions on me answering them, I'm bowing out. this is getting silly.

Thats got to be the worst comparison iv ever seen... you didn't even think that through.... uhh terrible.

Not only that but the sinking of the bismark had nothing to do with it being too large or wind blowing it away.... It sunk because a bunch of british battleships and cruisers blew the living hell out of it and didn't stop firing till it was at the bottom of the sea.

Besides that those were the days of battleships and it wasn't realised untill soon after that the time of battleships at sea had for the most part ended and aircraft carriers and subs became the more usefull and dominant navy ships.

Space is an entirely different thing to sea...remember this the next time you think of some of the worst comparisons iv EVER heard.

THE BIGGER THEY ARE, THE HARDER THEY FALL.

Oh hey borg erm this guy said your design sucks......assimilate him and teach him a few things.

posted on December 24th, 2011, 1:45 pm

actualy you can compare the bismark with spaceships:P

the reason the bismark sank was because its rudder was damaged and thereby pinned in its place, like having a big starship with damaged warpengines. so you could get your ships (long range if prefered) to bombard it without worieing about the target moving toward you to shoot you to oblivion:P

posted on December 24th, 2011, 1:54 pm

actualy you can compare the bismark with spaceships:P

the reason the bismark sank was because its rudder was damaged and thereby pinned in its place, like having a big starship with damaged warpengines. so you could get your ships (long range if prefered) to bombard it without worieing about the target moving toward you to shoot you to oblivion:P

Again you should learn a few things about navy ships especially large one, they are spil into many many sections that can be closed off when they get hit so if a torpedo hits the side and water starts coming in a section can be remotely closed or manually closed so that the ship wont sink, smaller ships cannot do this very well so a single hit can sink the whole thing making it rather ineffective don't you think? a LARGE battleship can close these sections off after each successful hit on its hull allowing it to keep moving and NOT to sink, thats exactly how the bismark survived so long and almost escaped if not for the lucky hit a british cruiser got on its engines but then that would have been a problem for any ship on the sea and the story is that the british ships pounded the bismark for ages and it even with the entire thing ablaze and multiple torpedo hit it still did not sink, its like a borg cube being surrounded and even with it completed disabled its still not dead.


No this isnt a good comparison because the bismark was alone a battleship should be a part of a fleet you dont send ships off on their own certainly not in a war time space combat scenario.

The bigger the ship the more power it can hold, the more power it can hold the stronger the weapons and shields are so no comparing a 24th century SPACE battleship to a bunch of 19th century ww2 NAVY battleships that do not come under the same rules eg. shields phasers ect is not a good comparison at all.