Galaxy vs Challenger class Star Ship

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-06-26 06:48pm

All right. Rogue 9 tells me that before the Sovergens came out the Galaxy class starship was the Federations best combat ship.

Adam, a friend of mine who considers himself a trekkie, tells me that the Challenger class had more combat power due to it's bigger phaser arrey and better torpedo launchers (multi directional or something, I didn't really get it.)

So I ask you, experts of SD.net to lift the confusion I have on this subject. Which of these ship classes has more combat power?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-26 07:04pm

There is no canon information the the combat capabilities of the Challenger class.

However the Nebula class is far superior to the Galaxy class when it comes to combat. It packs mostly the same components in a smaller frame and has less surface area. This means the Nebula class has superior shields. Furthermore it has double the forward torpedo capacity of a Galaxy class.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-06-26 08:38pm

What is the Challenger class?

In BOBW, the Borg said that Picard commanded the most powerful starship in the Federation fleet.

It packs mostly the same components in a smaller frame and has less surface area.

Based on what evidence? We also don't know the disposition of the shield generators aboard the Galaxy class; there may be enough in the stardrive section so as to bring the overall shield power above that of the Nebula. We know the Nebula isn't as fast as the Galaxy, since Data's order for maximum warp in Redemption II brought a response of less than Warp 9.6; if we assumed the nacelles to be largely similar in design, that could indicate an inferior power system for the Nebula, which could lead to reduced phaser performance on the Nebula.

Furthermore it has double the forward torpedo capacity of a Galaxy class.

Only with the war pod, and only if we assume each of the torpedo ports represents a photorp launcher equivalent to the ones mounted by the Galaxy.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-26 09:55pm

Alyeska wrote: However the Nebula class is far superior to the Galaxy class when it comes to combat. It packs mostly the same components in a smaller frame and has less surface area. This means the Nebula class has superior shields. Furthermore it has double the forward torpedo capacity of a Galaxy class.

The Nebula has a much smaller frame which means quite likely a much smaller reactor (after all, they don't get the engineering section of the Galaxy class) which suggests less powerful shields/phasers/engines.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2004-06-26 10:34pm

Uraniun235 wrote:What is the Challenger class?

In BOBW, the Borg said that Picard commanded the most powerful starship in the Federation fleet.

It packs mostly the same components in a smaller frame and has less surface area.
Based on what evidence? We also don't know the disposition of the shield generators aboard the Galaxy class; there may be enough in the stardrive section so as to bring the overall shield power above that of the Nebula. We know the Nebula isn't as fast as the Galaxy, since Data's order for maximum warp in Redemption II brought a response of less than Warp 9.6; if we assumed the nacelles to be largely similar in design, that could indicate an inferior power system for the Nebula, which could lead to reduced phaser performance on the Nebula.

Furthermore it has double the forward torpedo capacity of a Galaxy class.
Only with the war pod, and only if we assume each of the torpedo ports represents a photorp launcher equivalent to the ones mounted by the Galaxy.

In a nutshell, a galaxy class saucer with a nacelle on the top and bottom.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-27 01:06am

The Kernel wrote:
Alyeska wrote: However the Nebula class is far superior to the Galaxy class when it comes to combat. It packs mostly the same components in a smaller frame and has less surface area. This means the Nebula class has superior shields. Furthermore it has double the forward torpedo capacity of a Galaxy class.
The Nebula has a much smaller frame which means quite likely a much smaller reactor (after all, they don't get the engineering section of the Galaxy class) which suggests less powerful shields/phasers/engines.

Incorrect. The Nebula engineering section is only marginaly smaller. Furthermore the GCS warp core does not take up the whole section and can be fit into the Nebula section. Smaller surface area and equal power means better shields.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-06-27 04:03am

The Nebula is smaller than the Galxy and therefore would not have the room fit every compoents of the same size as found on a Galaxy class. Therefore it should be somewhat weaker.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-27 05:14am

Alyeska wrote: Incorrect. The Nebula engineering section is only marginaly smaller. Furthermore the GCS warp core does not take up the whole section and can be fit into the Nebula section. Smaller surface area and equal power means better shields.

If you think the physical space of the warp core itself is the only thing that dictates the amount of space needed by the power production facilities of a starship, you are just being plain silly.

Furthermore, you have no evidence that shields require less energy to stretch over a smaller space, and you also don't have evidence that a Nebula-class doesn't have less powerful engines/weapons/shields. The smaller secondary hull and lack of a "neck" makes the interior space far less than the Galaxy-class and you cannot simply assume equal power production capability without knowing what the extra space on the Galaxy-class is used for.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-27 11:11am

evilcat4000 wrote:The Nebula is smaller than the Galxy and therefore would not have the room fit every compoents of the same size as found on a Galaxy class. Therefore it should be somewhat weaker.

Only partialy correct. The Nebula class is smaller then the Galaxy class, and this is entirely irrelevent. The Galaxy class wastes space needlessly for a variety of reasons (multi mission capability, etc.). The engineering section is for all intents and purposes the same size as the Galaxy class. It has more then enough room to field the same size reactor and anti-matter storage. Furthermore we know it has double the forward torpedo capacity. In the case of the Warpod Nebula is has massively more torpedoes.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-27 11:21am

The Kernel wrote:If you think the physical space of the warp core itself is the only thing that dictates the amount of space needed by the power production facilities of a starship, you are just being plain silly.

No, its called simple efficency. The GCS style warp core requires a certain deck height for it to fit into a ship. Look at the height of the GCS engineering section and where it is located. Then look at the available space in the Nebula class ship. While its engineering section isn't quite as large it just so happens to have the saucer section imediately above it and there is more room for it. Also without the impulse enginers in the secondary hull and no shuttle bays, there is plenty of room for equal fuel in the Nebula class ships.

Furthermore, you have no evidence that shields require less energy to stretch over a smaller space, and you also don't have evidence that a Nebula-class doesn't have less powerful engines/weapons/shields. The smaller secondary hull and lack of a "neck" makes the interior space far less than the Galaxy-class and you cannot simply assume equal power production capability without knowing what the extra space on the Galaxy-class is used for.

You completely ignore several of the most obvious things. Much of the space in the "neck" is a complete waste of space that the Nebula does away with. It does not have the shuttle bay. It doesn't need the reinforcement in the neck. It doesn't have a battle bridge. It doesn't need to bother with the saucer seperation connections and umbilicals. The amount of space in the neck is minor at best and most of those features simply don't exist on the Nebula class. And another point. The Galaxy class has a lot of cargo bay storage in the engineering section (several with external doors). The Nebula does away with the storage in the engineering section and attaches it to the pod connector (possibly to facilititate getting torpedoes into the pod). This means more space is freed up in the egineering section.

Furthermore we can assume equal power because the Nebula class uses mostly stock GCS parts. Given the large amount of unused or useless internal space on the Galaxy class and the obvious intent for a more effective ship with the Nebula, it is clear they are trying to build a better ship in a smaller package.

And as for the shields. You claim I have no proof they could get more powerful shields. Its a simple matter of surface area. If you have an equal amount of shield power and in one ship you have less area to defend, the amount of power boosted into the shields for defensive purposes is better. This is exactly why hull hugging shields are more powerful then spherical shields. Less surface area. For a similar reason a Nebula class with the same power will have better shields then a Galaxy class. And as for the phasers. That is a stock Galaxy class saucer. Same phaser arrays.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-06-27 11:38am

I really don't think the Nebula has less volume than the Galaxy. Any thing missing from the lack of the 'neck' is made up by thge wedge shaped structure that comes up off the back of the engineering hull, up passed the sauser to attach the 'weapons pod'.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-27 11:41am

Knife wrote:I really don't think the Nebula has less volume than the Galaxy. Any thing missing from the lack of the 'neck' is made up by thge wedge shaped structure that comes up off the back of the engineering hull, up passed the sauser to attach the 'weapons pod'.

Indeed. About the only space the Nebula class lacks it the neck from the Galaxy class and I already listed why such a loss is ultimately irrelevent.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-06-27 12:34pm

Adam, a friend of mine who considers himself a trekkie, tells me that the Challenger class had more combat power due to it's bigger phaser arrey and better torpedo launchers (multi directional or something, I didn't really get it.)

I don't get where you friend figured that. If thisis indeed the Challenger Class, its little more than the sauser section of a Galaxy or the New Orleans, with a elongated egineering section.

On the model, there are only the dorsal and ventral sauser arrays. There might be secondary arrays on the engineering hull, I can't make any out on the actual model even if there is or isn't on the artist depictions.

That said, even if there are secondary arrays, they're firing arcs are EXTREMELY limited in that the secondary hull is tucked in entirely behind the sauser and the engines are directly above and below it. Any secondary arrays on the engineering hull would be limited to an aft arc and the port and starboard with little or no elevation and shit for forward deflection.

I also see no evidence of any torpedo shrouds one would expect from Starfleet tech at this point.

So the Challenger looks more like a destroyer to frigate as Fed ships go.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-27 12:42pm

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/niagara.htm

That thing would be a better challenge to a Galaxy class.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-06-27 12:51pm

Alyeska wrote:
That thing would be a better challenge to a Galaxy class.

Niagra? Maybe, maybe not. Depends if the power generation for the smaller yet more numerous arrays of the Ambassador on crack is more or less than the available power for the newer arrays.

And if your theory on compactness of the ship directly relates to shield effectiveness. The outrigging alone on the Niagra is huge and makes it a big target.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-06-27 05:23pm

Alyeska, you still have yet to explain why the Nebula has a lower top speed than the Galaxy class, nor why the Borg would tell Picard that he commanded the most powerful ship in the fleet.

And as for the phasers. That is a stock Galaxy class saucer. Same phaser arrays.

That doesn't change the fact that there's only so much power available, and if the Nebula has inferior power generation capabilities (we're back to the top speed issue here) then it won't be able to fire those phasers as often or as long.

And as for the shields. You claim I have no proof they could get more powerful shields. Its a simple matter of surface area. If you have an equal amount of shield power and in one ship you have less area to defend, the amount of power boosted into the shields for defensive purposes is better.

Again, if the Nebula has an inferior power plant, it won't have as much energy available to pump into the shields.

Furthermore we can assume equal power because the Nebula class uses mostly stock GCS parts.

You don't know that. It borrows heavily from the Galaxy hull design, but we don't know just what they've put into it. We already know it's inferior in some degree because it can't match the Galaxy's speed.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/niagara.htm

That thing would be a better challenge to a Galaxy class.

It's also aesthetically garbage.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-27 05:34pm

Uraniun235 wrote:Alyeska, you still have yet to explain why the Nebula has a lower top speed than the Galaxy class, nor why the Borg would tell Picard that he commanded the most powerful ship in the fleet.

Remember the shape of the ships? Speed seems very dependent on how elongated the ship is. Ever wonder why the Excelsior was faster then the Constutition. Then the Galaxy, then Intrepid, then Sovereign. That has to deal with warp mechanics. For speed wise the Nebula is inefficent.

Furthermore, the Borg are full of shit with this statement. We know that the warpod Nebula exists and is more powerful then the Galaxy.

That doesn't change the fact that there's only so much power available, and if the Nebula has inferior power generation capabilities (we're back to the top speed issue here) then it won't be able to fire those phasers as often or as long.

Prove it has inferior power. I have proven that the Nebula has all the necessary room for the GCS warp core.

Again, if the Nebula has an inferior power plant, it won't have as much energy available to pump into the shields.

Again, I have already proven this to be incorrect.

You don't know that. It borrows heavily from the Galaxy hull design, but we don't know just what they've put into it. We already know it's inferior in some degree because it can't match the Galaxy's speed.

Speed is not dependent on power. The Defiant class is not a fast warship at warp but for its size it has a very powerful warp core.

It's also aesthetically garbage.

Irrelevent.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 2004-06-27 08:19pm

I recall that the ship that Data commanded was still in need of repair from the Battle with the Borg. The Enterprise-D was also above the norm thanks to Geordi's tweaking, correct?

EDIT: Clairfied post

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-06-27 11:48pm

Alyeska wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:Alyeska, you still have yet to explain why the Nebula has a lower top speed than the Galaxy class, nor why the Borg would tell Picard that he commanded the most powerful ship in the fleet.
Furthermore, the Borg are full of shit with this statement. We know that the warpod Nebula exists and is more powerful then the Galaxy.

Or the Borg were operating on the basis of incomplete knowledge or what was complete intel at the time they grabbed Picard.

It's also aesthetically garbage.
Irrelevent.

I'm afraid there is little dispute on this point. Aesthetics has no bearing upon function or capability.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-06-28 01:28am

Ever wonder why the Excelsior was faster then the Constutition.

No, why should I? It's a more advanced starship, and more than likely has an overall superior warp propulsion system, from the reactor to the warp coils.

I'm afraid there is little dispute on this point. Aesthetics has no bearing upon function or capability.

I wasn't trying to say that it did, I was just expressing my opinion that that ship looks like shit.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2004-06-28 08:58am

Uraniun235 wrote:
Ever wonder why the Excelsior was faster then the Constutition.
No, why should I? It's a more advanced starship, and more than likely has an overall superior warp propulsion system, from the reactor to the warp coils.
I'm afraid there is little dispute on this point. Aesthetics has no bearing upon function or capability.
I wasn't trying to say that it did, I was just expressing my opinion that that ship looks like shit.

err, that was a bad example. But you'll notice on warp-field okudagrams how the warp field lines fit around the contours of the hull? Now try fitting those around a Nebula.

Ironwolf · Post by **Ironwolf** » 2004-06-28 09:47pm

The Defiant class is not a fast warship at warp but for its size it has a very powerful warp core

Your comparing apples to oranges. The Defiant was an experimental design (hense the NX in it's hull registry) that was "... over gunned and over powered for a ship its size"

The Nebula most likely doesn't have this problem as it is a production ship (hence the NCC in it's hull registry) that was not specificaly designed to fight the borg. One would hope that Star Fleet does not send out ships with design flaws on a regular basis.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-28 10:55pm

Ironwolf wrote:
The Defiant class is not a fast warship at warp but for its size it has a very powerful warp core
Your comparing apples to oranges. The Defiant was an experimental design (hense the NX in it's hull registry) that was "... over gunned and over powered for a ship its size"

The Nebula most likely doesn't have this problem as it is a production ship (hence the NCC in it's hull registry) that was not specificaly designed to fight the borg. One would hope that Star Fleet does not send out ships with design flaws on a regular basis.

Irrelevent. The evidence stands to prove that power is not the sole deciding factor in speed and to point out that the Nebula can have equal power as the Galaxy and still be slower.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-06-28 11:37pm

Irrelevent. The evidence stands to prove that power is not the sole deciding factor in speed and to point out that the Nebula can have equal power as the Galaxy and still be slower.

Actually, it is apples to oranges, because at least with Nebula/Galaxy comparisons we can be reasonably sure that the warp coils are the same.

But, for all we know, the warp coils on the Defiant may be configured such that they do not efficiently utilize the full power of the warp core. That's a pretty small ship, and it's possible the warp coils are undersized for the warp core they're drawing on.

Matt Huang wrote:err, that was a bad example. But you'll notice on warp-field okudagrams how the warp field lines fit around the contours of the hull? Now try fitting those around a Nebula.

Any fool can draw curvy lines around a starship profile and call it a warp field. We already know that warp fields can have different shapes, on the very same ship, thanks to TNG Where No Man Has Gone Before, so without any knowledge on just how curvy the lines have to be for the ship to go just so fast, I think any speculation along those lines is largely futile.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-29 12:02am

Its already been stated by the ships creators that their rather areodynamic shape is dictated by warp mechanics. If you want your ship to go fast, you HAVE to shape them like that. Thats why ship designs have gotten sleeker and sleeker. The Nebula could have the exact same power plant but because of its design it has worse warp mechanics and is therefore slower.