Starfleet Shipbuilding and old Crapbuckets in service...

[Skylon]

Hmm, I'm not sure it was ever said the external modifications came about because of the refit. If the E-B looks exactly like the Lakota I suspect they might have been in the same flight. In which case the relative age may have been what allowed it to be upgraded to the point of being able to fight an extremely modern escort.

The Enterprise B and Lakota should look identical, as they are the same model (The Ent-B model was relabeled as the Lakota for that DS9 episode...The Ent-B bits could not be removed without damaging the model so they were left in place, the model had also been every other Excelsior from STS 3 through TNG).

Everything written about the Ent-B's extra bits has been fannon. There must have been something very mission specific since both the Ent-B and Lakota were built that way, while most Excelsiors were not.

Most TNG Excelsiors have registries in the 40000 range, based on Memory Alpha. The highest registry is the USS Melbourne at NCC 62043. Some are considerably lower. Only one has a registry close to the original Excelsior (NCC 2000)....the USS Repulse (NCC 2544). The original Excelsiors have likely been mostly retired by TNG.

To make things more confusing, the Ambassador-Class ships have registries in the 20000 range. You'd think that the replacement main line ship (implied by the Ent-B to Ent-C lineage) would have a higher registry. In universe did the Ambassador just not work out in fulfilling it role, resulting in a second batch of Excelsiors (deemed to be "good enough")? Were Excelsiors deemed to serve as support ships or work in tandem with Ambassadors, and later Galaxy-class ships will into the 24th century, resulting in a continued production of the class?

[Lord MJ]

Seems like the Ambassadors were the main battleships of the Federation during their time. It seems that they became obsolete when Galaxy and Nebula Class vessels entered mass production.

The Excelsior filled a different role than the Ambassador and it's possible that it's usefulness in role survived all the way to the late 24th century.

[Wyrm]

There are easier ways to prove it than making shit up.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, that proclaims due to the magic of the structural integrity field; absolutely no preventive maintenance needs to be done on the ship at all -- that components don't degrade over time, et cetera, even when subjected to intense operating conditions.

Shep, how the hell did you get that from Stark's statement? Obviously, the equipment does require maintenance — it's part of the engineers' jobs. The D's dilithium chamber hatch was replaced just before it was blown off as described by The Drumhead, so they obviously do do maintenance. But your comparison to modern nukes would have the Enterprise-D swap out its reactor every fifteen minutes if the materials were as radiation resistant as those reactor pressure vessels (assuming they have a mean lifetime of thirty years). The materials used on Fed ships are obviously a lot hardier than what we use, sufficiently advanced enough to keep the maintenance schedules sane.

It also implies, Shep, that each Fed ship gets a complete swapout of its EPS system every few years. It's not hard to imagine progressive upgrades under circumstances like that.

[Lonestar]

The Enterprise B and Lakota should look identical, as they are the same model (The Ent-B model was relabeled as the Lakota for that DS9 episode...The Ent-B bits could not be removed without damaging the model so they were left in place, the model had also been every other Excelsior from STS 3 through TNG).

Everything written about the Ent-B's extra bits has been fannon. There must have been something very mission specific since both the Ent-B and Lakota were built that way, while most Excelsiors were not.

Like I said, the Ent-B and the Lakota being late flight Excelsiors that were extensively redisgned(after major systems like reactors, nacelles were already purchased) because the follow on class(Ambassador? New Orleans?) was truncated at the end of the cold war with the Klingons.

Most TNG Excelsiors have registries in the 40000 range, based on Memory Alpha. The highest registry is the USS Melbourne at NCC 62043. Some are considerably lower. Only one has a registry close to the original Excelsior (NCC 2000)....the USS Repulse (NCC 2544). The original Excelsiors have likely been mostly retired by TNG.

Starfleet registration tags are virtually worthless.

To make things more confusing, the Ambassador-Class ships have registries in the 20000 range. You'd think that the replacement main line ship (implied by the Ent-B to Ent-C lineage) would have a higher registry. In universe did the Ambassador just not work out in fulfilling it role, resulting in a second batch of Excelsiors (deemed to be "good enough")? Were Excelsiors deemed to serve as support ships or work in tandem with Ambassadors, and later Galaxy-class ships will into the 24th century, resulting in a continued production of the class?

Shep posited that the Excelsiors were intended to replace the Constitutions in the "heavy cruiser" role, and with not much in the way of BBs being built(after than a handful of shots on a screen on the bridge of old FASA BBs), and the Ambassadors not having a big production run, it makes sense that Ent-B and Lakota are part of the final "flight" of Excelsiors.

It actually isn't unreasonable to assume that the Feds are still using older 80 year old crapbuckets, especially since one of their main peer competitors has been using D-series warships for, oh, 250 years.

[Stark]

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, that proclaims due to the magic of the structural integrity field; absolutely no preventive maintenance needs to be done on the ship at all -- that components don't degrade over time, et cetera, even when subjected to intense operating conditions.

Fuck off, dipshit. I expressly mentioned maintenance. Stop lying or drink paint-thinner.

[Ryan Thunder]

Where did the notion that plasma conduits are steam pipes come from anyway? Isn't plasma a superconductor?

I mean, its still one of the most obtuse power distribution systems I've ever heard of, but its marginally better than plasma pipes...

[Alyeska]

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, that proclaims due to the magic of the structural integrity field; absolutely no preventive maintenance needs to be done on the ship at all -- that components don't degrade over time, et cetera, even when subjected to intense operating conditions.

Fuck off, dipshit. I expressly mentioned maintenance. Stop lying or drink paint-thinner.

While I can certainly see an argument buried within those creative insults, it is rather difficult to see. Lets have more substance and less of the brilliant (ie bright) flames there Stark.

[Mr Bean]

Shep, how the hell did you get that from Stark's statement? Obviously, the equipment does require maintenance — it's part of the engineers' jobs. The D's dilithium chamber hatch was replaced just before it was blown off as described by The Drumhead, so they obviously do do maintenance. But your comparison to modern nukes would have the Enterprise-D swap out its reactor every fifteen minutes if the materials were as radiation resistant as those reactor pressure vessels (assuming they have a mean lifetime of thirty years). The materials used on Fed ships are obviously a lot hardier than what we use, sufficiently advanced enough to keep the maintenance schedules sane.

Sheppards point is that such materials are not magic. They are made out of matter, matter which will degrade over time. Maybe said matter is protected from most wear and tear by a force field generator, ok fine but that means the wear and tear that would be on the shielding is on the force field generator instead. This would be a manageable way to work it considering how Star Trek is know to use Structural integrity fields.

What Stark is ignoring is the simple fact that shit wears out, even when not being used. Hell unless you want to tell me they use forcefields in the hallway. I'm guessing the carpet in those hallways has been replaced a dozen times over the past hundred years of service. Likewise with every other part of the ship. It's why real life ships have a limited lifespan before they get junked because of the pressures of wave and salt spray. Likewise space shuttles being exposed to cosmic radiation, micrometer strikes and more, never mind the fact our 100 year old Star Fleet ship will also have phasers and disrupter fire to contend with.

The point is unless there is a Genie to magic up new advanced structural I-Beam which are or whatever style shape of reinforced steel or space steel Star Fleet uses for making up the bits of the ship that are it's backbone are going to wear out. Simply existing they are going to wear out. Protect them with structural integrity fields is going to save on wear and tear but it adds wear and tear on whatever is generating those fields. Our new space I-beams will be slightly off from the old ones because the new ones will be created from plans while the old ones were worn in by the stresses the ship went under in X number of years. It won't be as complete a fit even if they are joining them at the molecular level. In fact the closer you get to that the closer you get to a one time deal. The finer the bits fit together, the harder it is to fit in a new bit after you've had the entire ship moving and flexing over the years.


I know, I know, Yes how dare I bring up real life examples or science to compare to a Science fiction show. We don't tolerate that sort of thing around here no sir.

[Gil Hamilton]

Where did the notion that plasma conduits are steam pipes come from anyway? Isn't plasma a superconductor?

I mean, its still one of the most obtuse power distribution systems I've ever heard of, but its marginally better than plasma pipes...

No, plasma is not a superconductor. At least, not inherently. Plasma electrical conductivity goes up with temperature, but I haven't heard of plasma passing a current with no potential.


On the OP, there is another possibility that people might consider; maybe Earth's technology just hasn't improved that much since Kirk's time. Remember, "Relics" when they found Scotty and his ship, the Jenolen?

Note this:

GEORDI: That's interesting... because I was just thinking that a lot of these systems haven't changed much in seventy-five years. This Transporter is almost identical to the ones we use on the Enterprise. The subspace radio and sensors operate on the same basic principles, and impulse engine design hasn't changed much in 200 years. If it weren't for the structural damage, this ship could still be in service today.

SCOTT: Maybe so... but when they can build a ship like your Enterprise, who'd want to pilot an old bucket like this?

GEORDI: I don't know... if this ship were operational I bet it would run circles around the Enterprise at impulse speeds.

Scotty was brought out of the buffer, but recall that they still use design specs for impulse engines that Scotty himself wrote nearly a century earlier.

One possibility is that after Earth caught up to the rest of the quadrant, technology hasn't moved forward that much. Those old Excelsiors still might use the same engines they did in Kirk's day all told. All those old rustbuckets may just be what the Federation cranks out, because the technology isn't out of date enough to justify quitting making them.

It was only after the Borg did start seeing alot of variation in ship design, but that shouldn't be a surprise. Q's message struck home, there is some scary shit out there and the corner of the galaxy where humans have so far tread hasn't required much more technology than the Vulcans had when they found ZephramCochran scratching his ass the boonies of post nuclear America.

[MKSheppard]

Shep, how the hell did you get that from Stark's statement?

Go back to the first page of this thread; there's Stark imagining that with the magical SIF operating at all times; replacement needs for SF ships magically go away.

But your comparison to modern nukes would have the Enterprise-D swap out its reactor every fifteen minutes if the materials were as radiation resistant as those reactor pressure vessels (assuming they have a mean lifetime of thirty years). The materials used on Fed ships are obviously a lot hardier than what we use, sufficiently advanced enough to keep the maintenance schedules sane.

Obviously yes, the UFP has a lot more advanced MatSci than what we have now; and even in the real world -- we've advanced a lot -- we used to have to recore a naval reactor every two-ish years; now we can have them be sealed units for a 25-30 year lifetime.

But when that 25 year period comes due, what results is a very expensive, very lengthy recoring process, because you have to cut holes in the decks between you and the reactor, then carefully lift the spent reactor core out, inspect the reactor plant for signs of any damage which would prevent continued operation; fix the damage, then close the whole plant back up.

This is why the US Navy retired it's Nuclear Cruisers (CGNs) in the 1990s; they had been designed for a 35 year lifetime; and still had about fifteen to twenty years left depending on the ship. But what doomed them was that virtually all of them were coming up on their mid-life recorings. And those were very very expensive.

In Starfleet ships; replacing the thrumming warp core thingy would be a fairly simple task, due to there already being a built in core jettison system/tunnel.

But that thrummy thing is only a single part of the entire power generation/warp drive system on Federation Ships.

Link to 1701-D MSD

You can see how from the warp core center, there's a pipeline carrying the energy to the warp nacelles; and from there on it splits into three trunk lines.

Ripping out those lines and replacing them would be a heavy duty task; you'd have to open up the side of the ship, and put her into spacedock for at least several months minimum.

There's also the Warp Nacelles.

Are those originals from when the ship was commissioned; or are they stockpiled replacements?

Because if you replaced the warp core on your Miranda, along with the EPS lines to the warp nacelles; wouldn't you want to refit it with a pair of modern warp nacelles?

It could be that many older ships are simply derated to operate at Warp 6-7, to avoid stress on older components on their drive systems, in lieu of very expensive near total refits on the scale of the E-Nil refit in between the Series and the Motion Picture.

[Stark]

While I can certainly see an argument buried within those creative insults, it is rather difficult to see. Lets have more substance and less of the brilliant (ie bright) flames there Stark.

Excuse me? He just claimed that my argument involved no maintenance, which is patently false. He's a liar.

What stresses would your average SF ship be under anyway? Drive stress, obviously, and whatever stresses warp travel introduces. Those are (apparently) covered by the SIF, so depending on the properties of the structure and the cost of regular maintenance it might be trivial to keep older ships in service until they're useless (like the Mirandas that were in mothballs until they got dragged out in DS9 to die a lot).

Oops. If it's a choice between 'Shep simplemindedly applies 20th century military trivia to science fiction and declares himself right' and 'well I guess the maintenance is economical' the answer is not

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, that proclaims due to the magic of the structural integrity field; absolutely no preventive maintenance needs to be done on the ship at all -- that components don't degrade over time, et cetera, even when subjected to intense operating conditions.

He lied, I called him a liar. Is this wrong? He even JUST RIGHT THIS SECOND claimed that I said

replacement needs for SF ships magically go away.

which is again, obviously a lie.

[Stark]

What Stark is ignoring is the simple fact that shit wears out, even when not being used. Hell unless you want to tell me they use forcefields in the hallway. I'm guessing the carpet in those hallways has been replaced a dozen times over the past hundred years of service. Likewise with every other part of the ship. It's why real life ships have a limited lifespan before they get junked because of the pressures of wave and salt spray. Likewise space shuttles being exposed to cosmic radiation, micrometer strikes and more, never mind the fact our 100 year old Star Fleet ship will also have phasers and disrupter fire to contend with.

Yeah I'm ignoring that when I consider the cost of maintenance. I mean, by talking about maintenance obviously I'm claiming structures never degrade, right?

Oh wait, no.

[MKSheppard]

Excuse me? He just claimed that my argument involved no maintenance, which is patently false. He's a liar.

Your throwaway line about preventive maintenance was in reply to Lonestar. You've yet to answer any of my points; except belittling them as "military trivia".

[Stark]

Grow up, dipshit. You lied. You claimed I said 'absolutely no preventive maintenance needs to be done on the ship at all -- that components don't degrade over time, et cetera, even when subjected to intense operating conditions' when I obviously didn't. I don't give a shit about your posts because they're demonstrably wrong (ie, your pie-in-the-sky bullshit is obviously not happening because we see ~100 year old ships in service, for reasons people have discussed) but when you openly lie about something I've said in such a way I have to laugh at you.

So I guess you either admit I never claimed maintenance needs 'magically go away' or cement your position as utterly worthless.

[MKSheppard]

You claimed I said 'absolutely no preventive maintenance needs to be done on the ship at all -- that components don't degrade over time, et cetera, even when subjected to intense operating conditions' when I obviously didn't.

That's what you've been doing ever since I pointed out that there's more than just the stress that a starship encounters on it's spaceframe. When I pointed out that there are other types of stresses such as intense radiation (of all types) from the various components of the power generation/propulsion system, and gave some examples of how so; you went on your typical mocking passive/aggressive bullshit:

So I guess you can show how that's relevant then?

Oh wait, you can't.

Turns out if they keep ships in service it's either economical to do so (or more economical than designing and building a new class) or they just don't care. Making shit up about ST materials nobody knows is a waste of time.

Completely failing to address my points.

[Stark]

Sorry I didn't realise to discuss starfleet I had to address your points. I thought I could just deal with evidence and not your Janes All the Worlds Ships fanfiction. When you make shit up and strawman me it just makes you more ignorable.

I'm not interested in arguing with you, because you're just some fan. We deal with evidence; extremely old ships remain in service. Thus - as I've said - your discussion of the damage these ships endure is only peripherally relevant, because we already know they remain viable. As I said long before you started lying like a little bitch,

depending on the properties of the structure and the cost of regular maintenance it might be trivial to keep older ships in service until they're useless

and more recently in your own quote

Turns out if they keep ships in service it's either economical to do so (or more economical than designing and building a new class) or they just don't care

In this way, you crapping on about replacing 25km of plasma conduit (at a cost in time and resources I imagine you just made up, over a time period you just made up) is pretty much irrelevant. We're trying to understand why the observed facts happen, not write fanfiction about why it can't possibly happen.

Reality Shep. It's not what you make up.

[MKSheppard]

When you make shit up and strawman me it just makes you more ignorable.

Yawn.

In this way, you crapping on about replacing 25km of plasma conduit (at a cost in time and resources I imagine you just made up, over a time period you just made up) is pretty much irrelevant.

Hey, lets look at some real world examples, instead of listening to Stark's P/A bullshit.

There are 1,600 miles (2,575 km) of wiring (electrical and otherwise) in a Nimitz Class CVN; and about 32,525,000 ft3 of internal volume (921,000~ m3).

Size of CVN volume

Link to CVN-77 Brochure

It's interesting through. The first Nimitzes built (1970s) were described as having "over 900 miles of wire" -- contrast this with CVN-77's 1,600+ miles.

US warships have been getting more cable/wiring dense ever since the turn of the century with each successive generation.

But enough digression. This comes out to about about 2.8 kilometers of wiring for every thousand cubic meters of volume.

Seems that some guys using 3D modelling programs have calculated the volumes of common Starfleet ships by scaling the ships length's up against public figures:

Link

Ignore the fact that it's DarkStar asking for the information; this may be one of his better ideas.

Code: Select all

Galaxy Total: 5,820,983 m3
Galaxy Saucer: 3,829,567
Galaxy Stardrive: 1,991,416
Galaxy Nacelle (each): 280,204

Sovereign - 2,429,193
Nebula - 4,443,196
Intrepid - 625,885
Ambassador - 2,547,862
Defiant - 61,724
Constellation - 636,553
Excelsior - 770,554
Miranda - 217,770
Sabre - 239,317
Akira - 1,407,821
Steamrunner - 642,033
Prometheus- 769,670
Norway - 534,027
Constitution (TOS) - 211,248
Constitution (Refit) - 234,928

Even the tiny Defiant would have about 172 km of wiring on her; while a Miranda would have 609~ km of wiring; a Excelsior about 2,158~ km; and an Ambassador about 7,134~ km.

And this is assuming that wiring density remains the same (2.8 km of wire per 1,000 m3); between now and Star Trek; when the amount of subsystems and data in a Federation system have exploded -- look at how you can walk up to any control panel, call up a suitably high resolution picture of what the bridge is seeing; or control the whole ship from that location.

Even if we use little autonomous robots like that shown in that throwaway TNG episode where a whole swarm of repair robots becomes sentinent and demands rights -- eliminating the need for having physical humans on board the ship to do the scut work; the ship is going to be out of service for a bit, because unlike electrical wire; the EPS system is fairly dangerous -- you have to proof test each conduit, lest we get multiple EPS blowouts that flood compartments with energetic plasma when the system is energized for the first time.

[Sea Skimmer]

Star Trek ships would be especially unhelped by the fact that so damn many critical systems and access panels are located inside the jefferies tubes, which is totally retarded when they waste so much space on making every damn part of the ship look like a luxury liner from the engine room on up. We see people crawling into them to do work all the time during routine operations on the Enterprise, never a good sign. That limited access means everything you remove and replace has to be carried through those tubes, instead being able to roll it along on a cart down the main corridors. That would get to be a nightmare once you reach the point of replacing entire subsystems, instead of just a few random components which broke.

Starfleet probably operates a lot more like the old sail navies then a modern one on maintenance. Ships go out of dock for very long 5+ year missions, and come back as mobile wrecks in which thousands of problems have been given band aid solutions. Then they spend a long time in the yard being rebuilt, during which a lot of systems are simply upgraded because the old shit is obsolete and no longer stocked.

[Mr Bean]

I betcha maintenance on big internal components would be a lot easier if there was some way to magically teleport things through walls. If only Starfleet had that kind of thing available, it'd be a real cost-cutter.

That would make sense if a teleporter could act as a cutting device and we did not know there was a huge list of things that Teleporters can't teleport.

Besides we know from the show from dozens of episodes, which shit breaks in the jefferies tubes, you have to walk nor are parts teleported into job sites. Might have something to do with the whole Telporters not working near stronger energy fields aka plasma conduits you often find in said jefferies tubes.

[Stravo]

On Stark's apparent point that because we see these ships in use means that we can ignore reasonable questions on maintenance and other real world considerations ignores what we do here all the time in examining the observations of a fictional universe. For example when AOTC came out and we got the figure of 2 million units. People were up in arms, how can a Grand Army of the Republic be comprised of 2 million clones when we have upwards of several million worlds to police and fight in and huge numbers of easily built droids to contend with? Much real world experience was brought into the debate using quantifiable terms like number of worlds, number of troops, manufacturing output of droids, kill ratios, etc. and the answer was the 2 million clone number was simply unreasonable. No one would have accepted the answer "because we are told 2 million clones and the figure is reinforced in the EU we should ignore these real world applications of this new fangled science on our precious fiction."

That's just silly and runs counter to the spirit of this board.

Shep and others are absolutely right to bring up real world issues about maintenance, materials and economic resources. It's looking at something rationally. To say because we see Excelsiors fighting in the Dominion War it simply must be so. But WHY is that happening? WHY are we seeing 100 year old frames fighting alongside ships only 10 years old with little to no apparent difference? Bringing up real world limitations on that kind of observations is what makes reading these threads so cool especially for unscientific people like myself who never really considered it.

Now to add to the actual debate there has to be something about Starfleet (and other Alpha Quadrant powers) construction and ship building that makes these vessels hardier than what we would reasonably expect. For example in the TNG episode where Riker leads a wargame against the Enterprise using an ancient Constellation class derelict it only took Riker a few hours and a small engineering team to get the ship into fighting condition and actually defeat a top of the line Federation battlecruiser. Something about the way these ships are made makes them easy to mothball and easy to get back up and running.

Another example of this magical hardiness is the Jenolan herself. The ship is a derelict for something like 75 years yet Geordi and his team can get her back up and running at near full power in a matter of hours including such power intensive and senstive systems like the shields.

So we need to actually take into account from observed examples that whether it makes sense to our modern notions there is something in Federation technology that makes it less prone to the usual breakdowns vessels would normally go through.

This construction "magic" seems to also extend to other Alpha Quadrant powers like the Klingons who have been fielding the same workhorse design (D-7) for hundreds of years - with little to no apparent change in functionality.

The BoP is another fine example of Klingons using a space frame for centuries without seeing a need to abandon or adopt a new design. Even an outdated modification of a BoP was still able to nearly destroy a Galaxy class vessel single handedly in Generations.

But unlike others I am not saying because of these examples it just simply is so. I wonder WHY it is so.

[Mr Bean]

[

What I'm thinking about is replacing larger parts. Shep says one of the big costs in modernizing an old ship is having to cut into its hull to replace things like the reactor. But, you could avoid that if you could beam it in.

Have the crew crawl in and disconnect the piece in question (or use the magic computer buttons that can sever and reroute connections from the comfort of your workstation, whatever). Then, beam the whole block out and beam the new block in and reconnect it. Internal part upgraded without needing to cut in to the hull.

That assumes you have the room to beam it out. The Star Trek designers are space wasters but I somehow I don't think they leave ten foot gaps across from ten foot consoles so it's a question of can you disconnect a part, beam it out and beam it back with enough precision to not you know leave your new part .05 mm's to the left and thus into the bits that you now have to repair.

Is it possible for all parts?
Unlikely
It is possible for SOME parts? Quite possible, however I'll note that there are again space issues. Can you teleport the old part out and the new part in? Possible. But what if it's a connected part? Why would a teleporter take a bundle of loose wires and metal bits and beam it exactly back into place with all those lose wires connected and the space screws in? Smaller parts yes (But again if its small enough to hard carry they do) medium parts maybe (Unless prevented by material science it makes good sense to say teleport a new bridge console in to replace the one that exploded last episode) but larger parts? That assumes you have a void big enough to put it in that's also big enough to adjust it as needed to connect back up wires.

To take an example, how about an modern engine?

Lets say you have a teleporter to remove it, all well and good but you kinda need to disconnect all the wires and what-not first. On a Starship there's not always going to be that space so you have to remove deck plating, bulk head and what not so you can disconnect everything and then the engine can be beamed away. Beaming it back is tricky and if screwed up will most likely requires you to fix two things. But lets say you can always put it back in exactly down to the billionth of an millimeter in accuracy.

Now you have go in, reconnect everything and seal everything back up. It's not as if you can take said engine simply ask your Teleporter room to beam one out and beam a new one in without any prep work what so ever. Doing maintenance you have to check it, you have to test it, and in case the teleporter room beamed it .00007 of a millimeter to the left you need to check and move it.

Might have something to do with the whole Telporters not working near stronger energy fields aka plasma conduits you often find in said jefferies tubes.

Assuming you're right, they could always shut down the system when doing the replacement, like they'd almost certainly have to do anyway.[/quote]
Shut it off? Maybe in drydock but they don't tend to run power for the Ice-cream maker down the jefferies tubes. No that power goes to critical systems, things like life support, weapons, shields, navigation or sensors. Things that you can't exactly power down without negatively impacting the ship. Just like in real life, our Star Trek enlisted must simply work around them and power down anything non-essential they are working on. To note something like the Plasma conduits that Sheppard has mentioned are ill suited to be shut down except for battle damage or drydock. And beaming them in and out (Quite possible unless whatever they make them out of them are on that list of "materials you can't send through a transporter") while possible faces issues because they are conduits and thus have junction points and seals that have to be reconnected and you can't beam those back into place and get a good seal, they would have to be enough room near by to beam into which by show visuals the plasma tubes are bigger than the jefferies tubes that run alongside them means your still cutting bulkhead to get access to reconnect seals and random bits.

[Skylon]

Starfleet registration tags are virtually worthless.

I know there are some wacky issues with the registries, but overall there tend to be some consistencies. For example, TOS-era ships do not break 4000. Only a handful of TNG era ships fall under these numbers. With the rest numbering NCC-9000 and up (virtually every TNG ship has a five digit registry). This implies most ships of the TOS era have been retired (ships that fall under that category, include the mothballed Hathaway, the trashed Stargazer and a couple ships shown to be on active duty).

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Federation ... registries

The Galaxies, Intrepid-Class and Defiant-Class ships all fall into registries from NCC-70000 and up. Those are the highest registry numbers of the TNG era and are, as presented, the newest ships of the era. The Nebula-Class ships all are labeled in the 60000's and up (going into the 70000). Excelsior-class ships are scattered across the registries, suggesting a very long production life.

[Lonestar]

The Galaxies, Intrepid-Class and Defiant-Class ships all fall into registries from NCC-70000 and up. Those are the highest registry numbers of the TNG era and are, as presented, the newest ships of the era. The Nebula-Class ships all are labeled in the 60000's and up (going into the 70000). Excelsior-class ships are scattered across the registries, suggesting a very long production life.

Or that registry numbers are jumped for weird reasons(like in the real world where we're jumping from DDG hull numbers in the 100s to the DD-1000 in the 1000s.)

I also maintain a healthy amount of skepticism because there are instances of hull numbers not matching registration numbers on dedication plaques(the Yamato, for one).

[Stark]

It's possible they get new registries if they're taken out of service and put back in or renamed; the E-A was another ship first, wasn't it? Excelsiors with very high registries either means they kept building them or when they pulled them out of mothballs they got a 'current' number. I think the ships expressly old (like Hood etc) have closer to 2000 than 70000 registries.

[Wyrm]

That assumes you have the room to beam it out. The Star Trek designers are space wasters but I somehow I don't think they leave ten foot gaps across from ten foot consoles so it's a question of can you disconnect a part, beam it out and beam it back with enough precision to not you know leave your new part .05 mm's to the left and thus into the bits that you now have to repair.

You don't need to transport it with that kind of precision. You just need to beam it in with enough play to install it properly the old fashioned way.

Is it possible for all parts?
Unlikely
It is possible for SOME parts? Quite possible, however I'll note that there are again space issues. Can you teleport the old part out and the new part in? Possible. But what if it's a connected part? Why would a teleporter take a bundle of loose wires and metal bits and beam it exactly back into place with all those lose wires connected and the space screws in? Smaller parts yes (But again if its small enough to hard carry they do) medium parts maybe (Unless prevented by material science it makes good sense to say teleport a new bridge console in to replace the one that exploded last episode) but larger parts? That assumes you have a void big enough to put it in that's also big enough to adjust it as needed to connect back up wires.

Your "exact transporter matchup" is unnecessary. See above.

We know that they can replace quite major parts of the ship already. In Phantasms, the Enterprise got a warp core and some bum warp conduit that carried interphasic critters that infected the crew. After the incident, they were able to manufacture and install a new section of conduit. How long this section was is debatable, but they were able to manufacture a new section in the field and replace it within six hours without calling for a tow back to the nearest starbase, and even if it did (and Geordi was lying), it certainly did not require "ripping out" the old conduit with the implied violence Shep imagines — the ship was NOT down for several months. So, it appears that the conduits too are easily serviceable and replaceable... at least certain sections of them that can be serviced easily. However, the other parts of the conduits are of similiar technology and lifetime, which means that if they had to replace those parts seven years after commissioning, the Enterprise-D must be getting on in years if they have to be "ripped out". If their greatest ship (at the time) has such a short lifetime, this is at odds with similar ships that are still in service after many decades.

Also, Shep seems to be making the background assumption that the spaceframe is not designed for centuries of space irradiation and harsh stresses if properly cared for, and decades even without such care as the Jenolan. Granted, centuries is a bitch-long time, but it only postpones when you need to write off the spaceframe, and does not eliminate the eventuality. The spaceframes do wear out — they just have a looong lifetime. Even though the SIF generators will wear out faster in exchange, replacing a few generators here and there ought to be much easier than tearing apart the entire spaceframe and rebuilding it.

There's also this general background assumption that because the class is old, that the ships themselves must also be old. Maybe the class is still in production; the class is old, but the ships themselves are brand new. That neatly sidesteps the aging spaceframe concerns; the class is aging and relegated to second-tier ships, but still useful for certain missions, and because the class has been in production for many decades, spare parts and expertise are abundant. An old, but dependable design that's still in production.

====

Obviously yes, the UFP has a lot more advanced MatSci than what we have now; and even in the real world -- we've advanced a lot -- we used to have to recore a naval reactor every two-ish years; now we can have them be sealed units for a 25-30 year lifetime.

But when that 25 year period comes due, what results is a very expensive, very lengthy recoring process, because you have to cut holes in the decks between you and the reactor, then carefully lift the spent reactor core out, inspect the reactor plant for signs of any damage which would prevent continued operation; fix the damage, then close the whole plant back up.

This is why the US Navy retired it's Nuclear Cruisers (CGNs) in the 1990s; they had been designed for a 35 year lifetime; and still had about fifteen to twenty years left depending on the ship. But what doomed them was that virtually all of them were coming up on their mid-life recorings. And those were very very expensive.

So the designers fucked up on the refit design for nuke cruisers and the whole class had to be retired before its time. It happens. Yet some nuclear-powered classes had to be recored every two years by your own admission. Did they have to scrap those classes too? Or were their designs such that they could be recored relatively painlessly?