Galaxy Should be Buildable

posted on December 24th, 2011, 10:38 pm

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.

This might be true in some other fictional univrses, but in Trek the power comes from a relatively small section of the ship, not from every part of the ship (and no, they don't hav a bunch of batteries everywhere.) If you wanted more power you could trivially increase the size of the warp core without too much impact on total ship size. The issue is that you'd need conduits to transfer power that can hold that much more power. Really, the more power thing has almost nothing to do with ship size, which is why the Defiant isn't a weakling.
The reason bigger ships are usually more powerful in Trek is that tbigger means more phaser strips (too much power in one phaser might overload it. Note also this is how the Defiant can be so small as it has pulse phasers.) It also means the ship will be going on the types of missions that need a lot of energy.
Comparisons are difficult for other reasons, but the power vs. size isn't that much of an issue for comparing.

posted on December 24th, 2011, 11:02 pm

The issue is that you'd need conduits to transfer power that can hold that much more power.

This is the startrek universe you can just reverse the polarity to fix any issues but i seriously doubt they had any problem fitting larger power sources into the galaxy because they did and it worked fine.

Really, the more power thing has almost nothing to do with ship size, which is why the Defiant isn't a weakling.

Rubbish absolutely rubbish... you telling me you cant get power power from multiple power cores? The more space you have the more space you can use to put in larger and stronger power source or more of them. Many starships in startrek has multiple cores, i think the galaxy had 1 very large one.

The defiant used pulse phasers which are different i believe that technology better utilizes the power as it compresses the energy in someway to concentrate it and not wasting any energy unlike a continuous beam of energy, the defiants main weapons were the pulse phasers and quantum turrents.(the alternate universe one also has a phaser) but this is just 2 weapons and only 1 uses energy from the ship, its entirely different to what the galaxy does but lets not forget the galaxy was not originally intended for battle it had strong armaments but wasn't equipped as a battle ship would be OR could be.

The defiant's shields didn't even use that much power it had rather standard shields but it had ablative armour.

You could fit a load more weapons on a galaxy and even ones that use energy from the ships power core because it has a much larger power source.

The defiant was also made for a different purpose it was a small battleship made more to dodge fire and get in close, the galaxy is a large battleship obviously to cover and soak up damage with is highly charged shields.

If you have more energy you can put more power into the shields, shields would stay active for as long as you can feed power into them and if you have more space you can put larger or more power cores to do that, the galaxy has the space to do that the defiant doesnt because it is too small.

posted on December 24th, 2011, 11:08 pm

Speculation.

  And quacking!!!! . Lots of quacking!

[kainalu]

posted on December 24th, 2011, 11:19 pm

Last edited by kainalu on December 24th, 2011, 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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.


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

That was rather personal...and rude....

YOU think about that before you take your opinions about someone you have never met and blast them onto a public forum.

I was simply discussing the merits of the topic, MrXT, and would appreciate some restraint. We share different opinions, but so far I have made my point clear without calling you names. 

Oh, and Merry Christmas

posted on December 25th, 2011, 1:25 am

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.

That is actually completely wrong. I know for a fact that the 6 foot model was relabed to Be the Enterprise E eraly in the preproduction workups for FC. it was only later that the higher ups desided to spend the money on a new shooting model. After FC  DS9 made heavy use of the Galaxy with 10 different ships appearing in the seens in Favor the Bold and Sacrafice of Angels. Plus many more in the battles of Chin'toka and Cardassia. 5 more appear in the Fleet that meets Voyager in Endgame. So the writers never abandon the Galaxy.

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?

That is not an accurate assemant of how tonage increases work. You really must consider both what makes up the tonage and what other things you can do with that tonnage.  As for refitting how do you explain the other older ship classes in FO. Saber, Norway, Excelsior, Akira, Steamrunner, and Nebula are all older then Galaxy.  As for Galaxy VS Soverign you are aguing apples and oranges because these classes are not in direct job competition.  There is some overlap in capability but that is true of any SF ship bigger the 300 meters. Galaxies job takes t outside of Federation space frequently while Soverigns job keeps her within Federation space more often then not. It's not a question of which is better choice. It's a question of right tool for the right job. You want to seek out new worlds grap a Galaxy. You want to secure the boarder or preform First Conact opperations garb a Soverign.

This might be true in some other fictional univrses, but in Trek the power comes from a relatively small section of the ship, not from every part of the ship (and no, they don't hav a bunch of batteries everywhere.) If you wanted more power you could trivially increase the size of the warp core without too much impact on total ship size. The issue is that you'd need conduits to transfer power that can hold that much more power. Really, the more power thing has almost nothing to do with ship size, which is why the Defiant isn't a weakling.
The reason bigger ships are usually more powerful in Trek is that tbigger means more phaser strips (too much power in one phaser might overload it. Note also this is how the Defiant can be so small as it has pulse phasers.) It also means the ship will be going on the types of missions that need a lot of energy.
Comparisons are difficult for other reasons, but the power vs. size isn't that much of an issue for comparing.

While most of these are true size does confer other advantages where power are concered. A larger ship can have a more robust cooling system letting a larger ship push is warp core harder. They also have better on board maintaince for repairs after pushing that core hard. Large cores put a sever strain on smaller vessels. Defiants almost shook her apart during her Builders trials. Larger ships hulls help to insalate the EPS system from being overloaded by incoming fire; somthing modern energy weapons ar notorious for.(that would be all the sparks, smoke, and console expltions you see on screen).

posted on December 25th, 2011, 1:26 am

If the Galaxy is made buildable, why not make it a mobile gun platform? That huge saucer is as large as the entirety of many ships and when I see it I think of it bristling with weaponry. Take out all the recreational and family compartments to make room for a massive weapons array, use the scientific equipment for special war abilities. Personaly I think the Galaxy could be heavily refitted into a torpedo-beam boat with the greater emphasis on torpedos.

Also, they could just refit the Nebula into a warship as it is essentially a compact Galaxy. It doesn't scream giraffe.

posted on December 25th, 2011, 2:10 am

If the Galaxy is made buildable, why not make it a mobile gun platform? That huge saucer is as large as the entirety of many ships and when I see it I think of it bristling with weaponry. Take out all the recreational and family compartments to make room for a massive weapons array, use the scientific equipment for special war abilities. Personaly I think the Galaxy could be heavily refitted into a torpedo-beam boat with the greater emphasis on torpedos.

Also, they could just refit the Nebula into a warship as it is essentially a compact Galaxy. It doesn't scream giraffe.

when refitting the galaxy for war it would probably be cheaper and faster to replace the whole saucer by something new with less room for people.
as the galaxy without saucer is more warlike already that part would only get the systems replaced if needed. no need for making more holes for torpedo ports or warpcore ejection or whatever:P

[Nebula_Class_Ftw]

posted on December 25th, 2011, 2:36 am

Last edited by Nebula_Class_Ftw on December 25th, 2011, 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

That is actually completely wrong. I know for a fact that the 6 foot model was relabed to Be the Enterprise E eraly in the preproduction workups for FC. it was only later that the higher ups desided to spend the money on a new shooting model. After FC  DS9 made heavy use of the Galaxy with 10 different ships appearing in the seens in Favor the Bold and Sacrafice of Angels. Plus many more in the battles of Chin'toka and Cardassia. 5 more appear in the Fleet that meets Voyager in Endgame. So the writers never abandon the Galaxy.

I meant abandoning the idea of new ones being built, not entirely dumping the models. Regardless of how it started, they did end up deciding to put a Sovereign in and kill the old Galaxy class.

That is not an accurate assemant of how tonage increases work. You really must consider both what makes up the tonage and what other things you can do with that tonnage.  As for refitting how do you explain the other older ship classes in FO. Saber, Norway, Excelsior, Akira, Steamrunner, and Nebula are all older then Galaxy.  As for Galaxy VS Soverign you are aguing apples and oranges because these classes are not in direct job competition.  There is some overlap in capability but that is true of any SF ship bigger the 300 meters. Galaxies job takes t outside of Federation space frequently while Soverigns job keeps her within Federation space more often then not. It's not a question of which is better choice. It's a question of right tool for the right job. You want to seek out new worlds grap a Galaxy. You want to secure the boarder or preform First Conact opperations garb a Soverign.

I meant tonnage beyond the warp core and such. As in, all those dekks and replicators and such.
As for those ships, I really want to know what bullshit reference you're using, because the Akira I know for sure is not older than the Galaxy. The Saber and Steamrunner I don't know for sure about, but I doubt they're very old. Please stikk to actual known canon, because the next time I see uncanon info like this, I'll just flatout say no to it. I think the simple explanation is that some classes of ship prove to be lasting designs, while others show their age. A ship with so much mass will certainly show its age fast compared to one that's much cheaper on resources and easier to refit.
You do hav a good point about job types, but I think the Sovereign really was a sort of replacement for the Galaxy. It's more warlike for sure, but that's the nature of the Federation post wolf359. Even if they are for different jobs, it strikes me as odd that they wouldn't make a new design to replace the Galaxy, and certainly the Sovereign is a better choice for the battlefield, which is what FO is about. FO is not a game where you explore planets.

While most of these are true size does confer other advantages where power are concered. A larger ship can have a more robust cooling system letting a larger ship push is warp core harder. They also have better on board maintaince for repairs after pushing that core hard. Large cores put a sever strain on smaller vessels. Defiants almost shook her apart during her Builders trials. Larger ships hulls help to insalate the EPS system from being overloaded by incoming fire; somthing modern energy weapons ar notorious for.(that would be all the sparks, smoke, and console expltions you see on screen).

Cooling system? EPS insulation? Would you care to bakk this up in any way with canon? Assuming this EPS insulation is true, why then does the Enterprise D hav about as much exploding consoles as Voyager? That seems like a pretty strong support against EPS insulation. Maybe you mean FO's subsystems? If so, then I may hav to chekk the guide, but I'm pretty sure that it said the reason is that there is more redundancy in systems.

[starfox1701]

posted on December 25th, 2011, 4:58 am

Last edited by starfox1701 on December 25th, 2011, 5:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

I meant abandoning the idea of new ones being built, not entirely dumping the models. Regardless of how it started, they did end up deciding to put a Sovereign in and kill the old Galaxy class.
I meant tonnage beyond the warp core and such. As in, all those dekks and replicators and such.
As for those ships, I really want to know what bullshit reference you're using, because the Akira I know for sure is not older than the Galaxy. The Saber and Steamrunner I don't know for sure about, but I doubt they're very old. Please stikk to actual known canon, because the next time I see uncanon info like this, I'll just flatout say no to it. I think the simple explanation is that some classes of ship prove to be lasting designs, while others show their age. A ship with so much mass will certainly show its age fast compared to one that's much cheaper on resources and easier to refit.
You do hav a good point about job types, but I think the Sovereign really was a sort of replacement for the Galaxy. It's more warlike for sure, but that's the nature of the Federation post wolf359. Even if they are for different jobs, it strikes me as odd that they wouldn't make a new design to replace the Galaxy, and certainly the Sovereign is a better choice for the battlefield, which is what FO is about. FO is not a game where you explore planets.
Cooling system? EPS insulation? Would you care to bakk this up in any way with canon? Assuming this EPS insulation is true, why then does the Enterprise D hav about as much exploding consoles as Voyager? That seems like a pretty strong support against EPS insulation. Maybe you mean FO's subsystems? If so, then I may hav to chekk the guide, but I'm pretty sure that it said the reason is that there is more redundancy in systems.

Please note registry numbers for the ships on the ILM FC Scale chart. For the record Registry # of USS Galaxy is NCC-70637. While the number will not give you an exact date they do indicate a rough time frame. The numbers run from the low 50s to the mid 60s. Since Galaxy was commisioned in 2357 that means all the FC classes came online in the 2340's and early 2350's.  A visual comparision also indicates that these classes share simalar warp field dynamics with Galaxy and Nebula classes. Things like wider primary hulls compared to length; and necelles that project forward and give the ships a more compact look like Galaxy. If they were from the same design school as Soverign they would be longer with skinnier primary hulls and engines that trail behind the secondary hulls instead of projecting forward.

Alex Jaeger, the designer of the FC ships, has also stated "...that even though they were 'new' designs, they were of the older era ships compared to the then new Enterprise-E."

The source is the TNG and DS9 tech manuals. They where both writen by the Art depatments to in part serve as technology guide for the screen play writers to encourage some consistancy in the systems from week to week.

Think about it, a phaser generates heat when it fires. That heat is disapated by a supersonic regenerative liquid N2 cooling loop. A bigger ship means a bigger more robust cooling loop, which lets you fire the phasers faster and for longer periods of time.

EPS stands for Electro Plasma System. It is the trek equivalent of wires. Conduits called waveguides pass streams of Electron Plasma to all the verious systems and equipment onboard. EPS waveguides are valnerable to outside power surges that distablise the containment fields and cause waveguides to shortout or blow. A larger ship is going to have a better shielded EPS network more capable of resisting these power surges. I supose the FO subsystem calculations could be influenced by these factors. I know I would take them into acount if I knew how to do the calculations.

Attachments

posted on December 25th, 2011, 5:29 am

You do realize registry numbers are extremely inconsistent, right? That's as canon as the phasers that fire out the torpedo tubes occasionally.
Older than Ent-E does not necessarily mean older than the Galaxy class. They could even be from the end of the Ent-D's design era, which seems likely considering we never saw them before in TNG when they logically would hav been serving if they were indeed made before the Galaxy class. Also, it could be that the Galaxy was in an even older design era than the Akira and such, with them being the very next design era.

I would love to see the exact words of the tech manuals that say that a)cooling loops are all over the ship and not just around the phaser strip. b) that EPS conduits actually are more protected by having a larger ship (this mainly is about whether each conduit is entirely taken out when a part of it surges, and also about whether the EPS conduits will be hidden deep in the ship or near the surface.)

[starfox1701]

posted on December 25th, 2011, 6:33 am

Last edited by starfox1701 on December 25th, 2011, 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

In what way are registry numbers inconsistant exactly.  Any close look shows that registries appear to flow in a fairly chronilogical order. 

Older than Ent-E does not necessarily mean older than the Galaxy class. They could even be from the end of the Ent-D's design era,

Anything is possible.

which seems likely considering we never saw them before in TNG when they logically would hav been serving if they were indeed made before the Galaxy class.

There is another explanation. Starfleet has always been charged with the security of the Federation. The TV shows consintrated heavily on the Exploration side of Starfleet before FC. It is also just as likely the these classes belong the the Military side of StarFleet  and would therfore be more likly to be encounered in situations like the Domminion war and the FC battle. It also appears that the Fleet had more time to form up for the FC battle then it did for Wolf 359. The Typhon fleet also seems to have drawn ships from a larger pool since Defiant had time to get there from DS9.

I would love to see the exact words of the tech manuals that say that a)cooling loops are all over the ship and not just around the phaser strip.

You think phasers are the only hardware that needs to be cooled down?

that EPS conduits actually are more protected by having a larger ship

The closer a conduite is to the surface of the ship the more heavily it needs to be shielded. More ship means more mass to vaporise to get to the EPS conduites.  The EPS system is going to have surge protecters and circiut breakers to prevent cascade failures just like any real world power grides. A bigger system can handle more juice so it also means better surge protection.

posted on December 25th, 2011, 11:29 am

Oh, and Merry Christmas

are you kidding, not even santa would risk entering a galaxy class thread, he knows better.

also his sled was refitted numerous times over the past 100 years, it's now powered by reindeer shit and fires transphasic joy torps.

[Tryptic]

posted on December 25th, 2011, 7:37 pm

Last edited by Tryptic on December 25th, 2011, 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Merry Christmas!  This thread needs it more than the X-mas thread.

You guys confuse me.  What was the original point of this discussion?  Should the Galaxy be buildable?  I think it shouldn't.  Such an iconic vessel represents the Federation's constant use of "non-combat" designs in times of distress.  The warpin scheme lets people get Galaxy class ships without spamming them, which would look AWFUL you must admit.  So if it's buildable, it should be a mid-range ship and capped to a very small number between 1-4.

As for the Galaxy going against a warbird...    actually that's not funny because of so sad it is.  The Galaxy had plot armor which allowed it to repeatedly take down warbirds in the shows despite the fact that a warbird was supposed to represent a much larger investment and a militarily-focused ship.  One D'Deridex on 2 Galaxies was supposed to be a fair fight, which made it that much more amazing when the Enterprise stared one down.  Of course, there was also the part where the Enterprise was the flagship of the Federation and destroying it would mean a MAJOR diplomatic upheaval, the captain of the warbird would fall out of favor with the Empire.

I like that the Feds can bring out large ships earlier in the game than other races, but they need to be balanced for the Mid-game.  I love the Warpin mechanic and I hope it gets balanced instead of being removed.  Perhaps it can cost resources, and/or be limited to a small radius around platforms or yards.  The community has proven repeatedly that if they're allowed to build all one type of ship, they WILL.  Warpins, passives, and things like the Klingon small yard are all specifically meant to increase fleet diversity.

posted on December 25th, 2011, 8:21 pm

You guys confuse me.  What was the original point of this discussion?  Should the Galaxy be buildable?

Yes that was the main point, but it seams to me thet the main arguments against Galaxy where all hinged on some mistaken thought process that the ship is outdated and technologicly inadaquit to the task at hand. So it has been my intention to rehab Galaxies image as a top of the line ship more then capable of doing the job. 

Should the Galaxy be buildable?  I think it shouldn't.  Such an iconic vessel represents the Federation's constant use of "non-combat" designs in times of distress.

Agreeed that and I just don't think there would be enough in any one theater for a spam based attack anyway.

posted on December 25th, 2011, 8:55 pm

Yes that was the main point, but it seams to me thet the main arguments against Galaxy where all hinged on some mistaken thought process that the ship is outdated and technologicly inadaquit to the task at hand. So it has been my intention to rehab Galaxies image as a top of the line ship more then capable of doing the job. 

It's not so much as not being a top line (though I'd consider the Galaxy class a 1970-1980 missile cruiser in today's world) but if it would be cost effective to upgrade it to the latest standard when newer designs are available. The Dominion war most certainly was costly and the federation would be searching for the most cost effective solution. This solution may very well be to phase out Galaxy Class vessels in favor of Sovereign Class vessels simply because new technology can be better fitted to a newer design.

Pump in enough resources and you can bring an Excelsior close to the level of a defiant, but sometimes it's simply cheaper to build defiants.