StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Didn`t the Galaxy class in Yesterdays Enterprise have troop carry capacity? I mean given the space they could easily carry 1000 troops.

Typhonis 1 wrote:Didn`t the Galaxy class in Yesterdays Enterprise have troop carry capacity? I mean given the space they could easily carry 1000 troops.

Here's what the script had to say

TASHA
(re: the new Enterprise)
She was the first Galaxy Class
warship built by the Federation...
forty-two decks... capable of
transporting over six thousand
troops...

Jark wrote:Which flaws are you referring to that we know exist in the Yesterday's Enterprise timeline?

There's an intercom call in one scene calling someone to "Cetacean Ops"; whoever wrote that in the script probably was under the impression that the dolphins were able to provide navigation benefits, but it's still a pretty severe flaw given how much space the dolphin tanks take up.

(Either that, or we accept that writer's fiat that the dolphins really do provide substantial returns, in which case we must question the efficacy of Federation/ST human/computer navigators.)

They probably just took the "Ocean creatures are important too!" theme from TVH a bit too far...

ShadowSonic wrote:They probably just took the "Ocean creatures are important too!" theme from TVH a bit too far...

Actually, it's a reference to the anime OVA series Gunbuster (AKA, Aim For the Top!), care of Rick Zimmerman.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

ShadowSonic wrote:They probably just took the "Ocean creatures are important too!" theme from TVH a bit too far...

Actually, it's a reference to the anime OVA series Gunbuster (AKA, Aim For the Top!), care of Rick Zimmerman.

Rick Sternbach

God damn it, "Sternbach" slipped from my mind and "Zimmerman" was the only thing I could think of, but Memory Alpha decided to be a bitch so I couldn't fix it in time.

Jark wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Do we know how long the Galaxy Class ships were in the design and construction phase before they were launched? Or do we know how long the Federation-Klingon war had been going on in the other timline?

Difficult to guess. Memory Alpha points to a development during the 2350's, (the Ent-C was lost in 2344). My old copy of the ST Chronology states "early design work approved" as 2343, but notes that's conjecture and has zero episode references.

As far as I know there's nothing in the Paramount canon to establish how long the GCS was in design and construction.

The TNG TM suggests, if I remember right, approximately twenty years from initial project approval to launch of USS Galaxy.

Uraniun235 wrote:As far as I know there's nothing in the Paramount canon to establish how long the GCS was in design and construction.

The TNG TM suggests, if I remember right, approximately twenty years from initial project approval to launch of USS Galaxy.

So in Generations, when someone, Riker IIRC, comments on the "20 year old Bird of Prey", the Ent-D is probably about 10-12 years old itself?

I'm pretty sure Ent-D is supposed to be just about brand-new as of Encounter at Farpoint, especially seeing as it had an incomplete crew on the voyage to Farpoint Station. There's also a remark in TNG Contagion as to the Ent-D being very, very new, but I can't remember if a timeframe was mentioned.

Uraniun235 wrote:I'm pretty sure Ent-D is supposed to be just about brand-new as of Encounter at Farpoint, especially seeing as it had an incomplete crew on the voyage to Farpoint Station. There's also a remark in TNG Contagion as to the Ent-D being very, very new, but I can't remember if a timeframe was mentioned.

I believe that she was in drydock and Tasha Yar was bringing Picard to the new ship.

Does the series not cover a linear 7 years? And I thought that Generations was a couple years after the series ended? Clearly I need to brush up on my ST.

havokeff wrote: So in Generations, when someone, Riker IIRC, comments on the "20 year old Bird of Prey", the Ent-D is probably about 10-12 years old itself?

The E-D was 7 to 8 years old in "Generations"

The D-12 BoP was in full service 20 years prior, and it was probably on its way out when the first sketches of the Galaxy project were drafted

havokeff wrote:Does the series not cover a linear 7 years? And I thought that Generations was a couple years after the series ended? Clearly I need to brush up on my ST.

Not a couple of years; I'm pretty sure Geordi remarks that Farpoint was "seven years ago".

Uraniun235 wrote:

havokeff wrote:Does the series not cover a linear 7 years? And I thought that Generations was a couple years after the series ended? Clearly I need to brush up on my ST.

Not a couple of years; I'm pretty sure Geordi remarks that Farpoint was "seven years ago".

Every season from the first one in TNG onwards is in "real time", ie a season in the series = a year in the series = a year in real life, so GEN takes place in (early) 2371.

I was always under the impression that the Galaxy class ship was very capable both offensively and defensively, but was absolutely loaded to the max with science labs and diplomatic accamodations (hence the...big... saucer section); and that the Sovereign class was basically a stripped down version of the Galaxy - certainly with the latest and greatest weaponry and defenses, because let's face it, it's been established in this thread that the Galaxy's a decade old, and the design is even older - and might cost even more per unit to build, despite the fact I'm assuming it's mass is significantly less.

This assumption is made on the basis that a stripped down version of the Galaxy would be capable of good research and diplomatic functions, but not to the extent that the Galaxy would be. Also, reducing the surface area of the ship would seem a good and cheap way to increase the effectiveness of the shields without having to put in a bigger shield generator (or what-have-you). The more 'expensive' part comes in when you consider what the ship is made out of. Assuming more ordered materials (titanium alloys, etc) can be made from lesser particles (hydrogen is pretty abundant) from replicators, a significant amount of energy probably needs to be expended for that to be done. The Federation doesn't strike me as the type to rape solar systems for their raw materials. However, contrary to what we see on the TV shows, it really must take a hell of a lot of power to make stuff via the replicators. So, assuming the Soveriegn is made from a lot more exotic materials than the Galaxy, it's possible that it might take more time and energy to make, and in the end, in a full blown war, it might not really be worth it.

Common sense says that Starfleet wouldn't replace the Enterprise-D with a new design that wasn't really better than its predecessor in any substantial way (and actually inferior to it in many aspects).

That got me thinking however - confidence in the Galaxy class wouldn't exactly have been high at the time the Sovereign class was launched. The Yamato got destroyed because of a computer error, the Enterprise-D got blown up by a defective 20 year old BoP, and while the Odyssey did take some fairly horrendous damage before being destroyed, it doesn't change the fact that it got blown away by a deadly new enemy.

So, maybe the Sovereign was a calculated PR move by Starfleet - take a ship that in most aspects is the same as its predecessor, bolt on a few new goodies such as ablative armour and quantum torpedoes, make the Enterprise-E part of this new class, and the population is reassured that Starfleet is taking care of them with a spankin' new ship.

Back to the original point... well, you can't really make a direct comparison, since we've never seen the D and E in the same type of situation. I'd guess that the E has the edge based on the quantum torpedoes, armour and better manoeuvrability, but the whole thing hinges on the assumption that Starfleet wasn't so stupid as to massively cut down on the Sovereign's phaser and shield power.

DaveJB wrote:Common sense says that Starfleet wouldn't replace the Enterprise-D with a new design that wasn't really better than its predecessor in any substantial way (and actually inferior to it in many aspects).

Simply being more reliable would make it considerable superior, without necessarily implying any advantage in firepower or shielding. There are plenty of other performance specifications other than firepower or shielding which might have been different between the two classes.

DaveJB wrote:So, maybe the Sovereign was a calculated PR move by Starfleet

The glued on single-shot torpedo launchers certainly support this hypothesis. If so I find it amusing that Starfleet has been reduced to tactics that formerly the Romulans were derisively accused of (i.e. building the Warbird in the shape it is to look bigger and more threatening than it really was).

Count Dooku wrote:I was always under the impression that the Galaxy class ship was very capable both offensively and defensively, but was absolutely loaded to the max with science labs and diplomatic accamodations (hence the...big... saucer section); and that the Sovereign class was basically a stripped down version of the Galaxy - certainly with the latest and greatest weaponry and defenses, because let's face it, it's been established in this thread that the Galaxy's a decade old, and the design is even older - and might cost even more per unit to build, despite the fact I'm assuming it's mass is significantly less.

How is it "loaded to the max" when there are (if you want to listen to the production staff) significant areas of the ship left totally empty for future expansion, and when the ship has a crew of less than a third of what was originally envisioned for a ship that size?

Uraniun235 wrote:

Count Dooku wrote:I was always under the impression that the Galaxy class ship was very capable both offensively and defensively, but was absolutely loaded to the max with science labs and diplomatic accamodations (hence the...big... saucer section); and that the Sovereign class was basically a stripped down version of the Galaxy - certainly with the latest and greatest weaponry and defenses, because let's face it, it's been established in this thread that the Galaxy's a decade old, and the design is even older - and might cost even more per unit to build, despite the fact I'm assuming it's mass is significantly less.

How is it "loaded to the max" when there are (if you want to listen to the production staff) significant areas of the ship left totally empty for future expansion, and when the ship has a crew of less than a third of what was originally envisioned for a ship that size?

Can't say I actually knew that. Perhaps, then, the Sov. was just a more practical implementation of the Galaxy?

What I can't fathom is why people think the Sovereign would be more powerful in the first place, or even possibly more powerful. All you need to do is look at Starfleet's approach to modern warships. The Prometheus, a ship that splits into three parts. The Intrepid, full of experimental technology like moving nacelles, gel packs and whose security kit includes experimental phaser rifles which they ditched presumably because they sucked. Added complexity only works if it gives significant advantage. The Galaxy doesn't have any blind spots, so littering its hull with phaser emitters and single-shot photon launchers is a stupid idea unless phaser emitters cannot support the full ship's power (and given we see all power to weapons all the time this seems highly unlikely.)

The Sovereign seems to me to represent the Yamato concept. Littering a battleship with as many anti-aircraft guns as possible, with as little support craft as possible, to make as powerful a self-sufficient craft as possible. But that doesn't change the fact that if a modern cruiser went toe to toe with a modern battleship, the cruiser could win due to any number of factors. This is how I see Galaxy versus Sovereign. Even if the Federation was not stupid enough to design a Sovereign with less firepower and less shielding, the overall design concept and probably miniscule increase in firepower and shields wouldn't make up for high unit cost and less concentration of firepower. This is a universe where a handful of shuttles with luck can take on a battleship and win, so the Sovereign is fundamentally stupid no matter how you look at it.

I'm not saying Starfleet should've made an aircraft carrier, but more battleship-ish was a completely wrong move. Also, more internal volume cannot be discounted. Why didn't they make the Sovereign with the same internal volume as a Galaxy, but fill the rest of the space with troop quarters and fusion reactors to power additional phaser emitters? The Sovereign is supposed to be a replacement to the Galaxy, supposed to fill the same role. The only rational reason I can think of is sacrificing mass for speed, so already the Sovereign appears to have less staying power than a Galaxy.

Darth Wong wrote:

Howedar wrote:Actually I think this assessment comes from a visual inspection of the ship (more total weapons emplacements) and from watching it fire said weapons (I believe most/all of them have been seen firing onscreen).

The fact that it has lots of phaser strips doesn't necessarily mean it has more firepower. We know nothing about the cooling, supply, and other subsystem requirements of phaser strips. It could very well be that in order to put that many weapons on the ship, they had to give something up in return. Simply counting the number of apparent weapons is a highly suspect modus operandi, particularly on ships where everything is known to be so heavily interconnected and interdependent. It's not as if they're going to be self-powered turrets.

Oh, I strongly agree. I think it's probably a better judgment than going off of which one looks "more impressive", though.

brianeyci wrote:What I can't fathom is why people think the Sovereign would be more powerful in the first place, or even possibly more powerful. All you need to do is look at Starfleet's approach to modern warships. The Prometheus, a ship that splits into three parts. The Intrepid, full of experimental technology like moving nacelles, gel packs and whose security kit includes experimental phaser rifles which they ditched presumably because they sucked. Added complexity only works if it gives significant advantage.

None of this is relevant.

The Galaxy doesn't have any blind spots, so littering its hull with phaser emitters and single-shot photon launchers is a stupid idea unless phaser emitters cannot support the full ship's power (and given we see all power to weapons all the time this seems highly unlikely.)

This implies that the Sovereign's power systems are no more powerful than the Galaxy's. And no, we never see full power to the weapons in my memory. We don't see the ship stop, the lights go out, and everybody get really hot inside ala Crusade. We see full weapons power go to the weapons. Well duh.

The Sovereign seems to me to represent the Yamato concept. Littering a battleship with as many anti-aircraft guns as possible, with as little support craft as possible, to make as powerful a self-sufficient craft as possible.

It is just as reasonable an interpretation to suggest that all of those phasers are just as powerful as a Galaxy's, for reasons I have made clear above.

But that doesn't change the fact that if a modern cruiser went toe to toe with a modern battleship, the cruiser could win due to any number of factors. This is how I see Galaxy versus Sovereign. Even if the Federation was not stupid enough to design a Sovereign with less firepower and less shielding, the overall design concept and probably miniscule increase in firepower and shields wouldn't make up for high unit cost and less concentration of firepower. This is a universe where a handful of shuttles with luck can take on a battleship and win, so the Sovereign is fundamentally stupid no matter how you look at it.

Yes, it's stupid when you arbitrarily claim that there was a "probably miniscule increase in firepower and shields". Support that claim.

I'm not saying Starfleet should've made an aircraft carrier, but more battleship-ish was a completely wrong move. Also, more internal volume cannot be discounted. Why didn't they make the Sovereign with the same internal volume as a Galaxy, but fill the rest of the space with troop quarters

Because that's not the mission of a battleship?

and fusion reactors to power additional phaser emitters?

How do you know that they didn't add additional power supplies to support their additional weapons arrays? I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption that the Federation added the necessary support systems to make their weapons work at least on occasion, unless you have a pretty good reason to believe differently.

The Sovereign is supposed to be a replacement to the Galaxy, supposed to fill the same role. The only rational reason I can think of is sacrificing mass for speed, so already the Sovereign appears to have less staying power than a Galaxy.

Only if you consider massive crew penthouses a deciding factor in "staying power".

brianeyci wrote:The only rational reason I can think of is sacrificing mass for speed, so already the Sovereign appears to have less staying power than a Galaxy.

This could be a good explanation: the Sovereign can be a battlecruiser in respect to a Galaxy 'battleship'. The concept of the battlecruiser in the years before the WWI was 'sacrifice protection to outgun every ship you can't outrun and outrun every ship you can't outgun'. On the sea the slower but more protected battleship proved itself the ideal for a static battle (the infamous HMS Hood was a battlecruiser, and the Bismarck literally blowed it up with shoots that minutes later didn't destroy the battleship HMS Prince of Wales), but for pursuing and as rapid responce force the superior speed of the battlecruiser make it a better ship to intervene and attack the enemy with firepower similar to the battleship's one, competing with the outgunned cruiser in puirsuing action and intervening in less time to damage the enemy and gain time for gathering a full fleet complete with battleships, dreadnoughts and carriers.
In this optic, the Sovereign's known characteristics make sense. The phasers are supposed to be the last model, and we can suggest that they have similar power to the Venture (one of the 'war Galaxies') one's, or slightly lighters, perhaps whit more efficience and a better rate of fire (but we cannot know it for sure). The more torpedo launchers (five in First Contact and Insurrection and ten in Nemesis) are perfect for a Picard Manouvre, discharging a letal volley of torpedo in the very first seconds of battle, and in case of escaping. And the supposed superior speed it's the ideal for rapid attacks, like the one in First Contact.
The 'Sovereign battlecruiser' and 'Galaxy battleship' idea can also explain why we never saw them in the Dominion War: in the Third Battle of Bajor they could have acted as vanguard and be repelled from the superior fleet of the Dominion, in the First Battle of Chin'Toka they could weren't used because it was a too static battle for their defences, in the Second they could acted as tampons to prevent the Dominion breaking through and retire few minutes before the reinforces arrived (and been slaughtered by the Breen weapon), and in the battle of Cardassia they could acted as reserve, beeing dispatched to support Romulans when their flagship was destroyed (and we didn't see the Romulan part of the battle, only the Fed and Klingon ones, so it isn't strange that we didn't see the Sovereigns).
For the performance, we didn't see a Sovereign in a prolonged fleet action like the Galaxy's ones, so a confront is very difficult. Also, the Enterprise-E seems to be a lot unlucky, because we saw it always in the worst possible situations invented from the scriptors, and in the only one case when its speed could make the difference (the escape from Romulus in Nemesis) the overwhelming Scimitar proved itself able to outrunning and chasing it from very near, and was spared only by the will of Shinzon to capture Picard and save himself.