The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Trek Tech (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=203443)

Captain_Amasov February 14 2013 12:39 AM

Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
I've heard the Galaxy-class called an "Explorer" and the Sovereign-class as an "Explorer Type 2", but I've yet to see what this actually means, and how different the two ship classes mission profiles are meant to be based off of these designations.

Tiberius February 14 2013 01:49 AM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
They mean whatever you want them to mean.

SchwEnt February 14 2013 01:53 AM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
Depending on your sources, those classes have been called all kinds of things (explorers/cruisers/battleships/etc).

To my mind, I don't see the Sovereign as a follow-on successor to the Galaxy. Two different types of ships with different mission requirements and specifications and different roles.

The Sovereign class isn't a "new and improved" Galaxy class. It's a different kind of vessel with a different role, better in some ways, not in others. Sovereign doesn't necessarily make the Galaxy obsolete. They might even serve well together in a complimentary manner.

C.E. Evans February 14 2013 03:34 AM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
To me, an "explorer" is just a term for a very large, long-range Starfleet vessel ideally suited for deep-space operations. But like most Starfleet vessels, it's can carry out a variety of different missions when necessary, IMO.

Infern0 February 14 2013 10:35 AM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
Quote:

SchwEnt wrote: (Post 7680847)
Depending on your sources, those classes have been called all kinds of things (explorers/cruisers/battleships/etc).

To my mind, I don't see the Sovereign as a follow-on successor to the Galaxy. Two different types of ships with different mission requirements and specifications and different roles.

The Sovereign class isn't a "new and improved" Galaxy class. It's a different kind of vessel with a different role, better in some ways, not in others. Sovereign doesn't necessarily make the Galaxy obsolete. They might even serve well together in a complimentary manner.

I agree with this.

The Galaxy Class to me, represents an ambition to be "the best of everything" It was huge, luxurious, well armed, well equipped, and was in the late 2370's the full realization of Starfleets potential in ship-building.

The Sovereign on the other hand, was built only 10 years later, but in a vastly different time for Starfleet, recovering from a costly war, on edge, just a different time.

I feel that the Sovereign is a product of it's time, it seems more suited for battle, is stripped down, does not seem to have families or "superfluous" features.

Products of different era's in my opinion, but the Galaxy is still a very new ship really, I don't think they would make any more of them in a post war era, but the ones that already exist are still top of the line ships, and still would have a very important role in long range exploration.

Galaxy = "ultimate potential"

Sovereign = "realistic necessity"

that's how i'd describe them, both beautiful too.

Saturn0660 February 14 2013 03:10 PM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
Galaxy = "ultimate potential" AKA= Very costly to build and maintain.

Squiggy February 14 2013 04:08 PM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
Since in Star Trek you can make pretty much whatever you want out of poop and hydrogen, cost isn't an issue.

King Daniel Into Darkness February 14 2013 04:43 PM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
No families, more weapons. Designed for action movies. That's the Enterprise-E

This is the description the E-E was designed from (from the early First Contact script at IMSDB) ...

The Enterprise is Starfleet's newest and most powerful vessel. An elegant and majestic ship. But unlike the last Enterprise, Starfleet has opted for a more muscular vessel and the hull is studded with weapons and other defensive armory. We get the feeling this Enterprise is ready for anything.

anh165 February 14 2013 04:46 PM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
Quote:

King Daniel wrote: (Post 7682995)

The Enterprise is Starfleet's newest and most powerful vessel. An elegant and majestic ship. But unlike the last Enterprise, Starfleet has opted for a more muscular vessel and the hull is studded with weapons and other defensive armory. We get the feeling this Enterprise is ready for anything.

I wouldn't call the Ent-E majestic. It looks negative, cynical and the fact that it is 'studded with weapons' just tops off that this ship was designed by a 14 year old boy.

IMO of course.

Timo February 14 2013 08:15 PM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
Quote:

Since in Star Trek you can make pretty much whatever you want out of poop and hydrogen, cost isn't an issue.
Backstage, the writers do their damnedest to invent reasons why conventional wisdom would still hold and big things like starships would still be "expensive" to build. One of the TNG Tech Manual ideas on this is that while structures and systems in general are easily replicated or otherwise futuristically manufactured, warp coils are a bottleneck: they have to be "cast", just as painstakingly as gunbarrels for old battleships were cast in a serious real-world shipbuilding bottleneck.

Of course, the E-E has bigger nacelles than the E-D, so the newer starship might end up being the more "expensive" to build. That is, if the number of coils (nacelle length) is decisive, rather than the diameter of coils.

Timo Saloniemi

TheRoyalFamily February 14 2013 10:57 PM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
Quote:

Squiggy wrote: (Post 7682845)
Since in Star Trek you can make pretty much whatever you want out of poop and hydrogen, cost isn't an issue.

Since mining is still an important (and lucrative) thing in Trek, this obviously isn't true. You can get a lot of plastics and foods out of poop and hydrogen, but metals and exotic crystals would be a different matter entirely.

JoeZhang February 14 2013 11:36 PM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
Where does this "Explorer" and "Explorer type 2" come from?

C.E. Evans February 15 2013 12:05 AM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
Quote:

JoeZhang wrote: (Post 7684717)
Where does this "Explorer" and "Explorer type 2" come from?

"Explorer" came from the TNG Technical Manual for the vehicle type of the Galaxy-class. "Explorer type-2" for the Sovereign-class comes from several fan sites...
http://www.lcarscom.net/1701e.htm

DavidGutierrez February 15 2013 12:21 AM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
Quote:

C.E. Evans wrote: (Post 7681285)
To me, an "explorer" is just a term for a very large, long-range Starfleet vessel ideally suited for deep-space operations. But like most Starfleet vessels, it's can carry out a variety of different missions when necessary, IMO.

Based on a system I adapted from a website whose name I can't remember and who I can't seem to find anymore, I have come up with the following for my own fanfic:

Explorer type: Largest starships in Starfleet. Equivalent to the capital ships of today's navies: aircraft carriers. Sovereign-class, Galaxy-class, and Nebula-class. Capable of long-term independent operation and typical command ships during wartime. Perfect for deep-space exploration, independent long-range tactical operations, first contacts, and other diplomatic functions.

Heavy cruiser type: Used to be the largest starships before the explorer type came into being. Capable of medium-term independent operation. Akira-class, Niagara-class, Ambassador-class, Excelsior-class. Used to be capital ships. Well-suited for deep-space missions, independent medium-range tactical operations, first contacts, and other diplomatic functions.

Tactical cruiser: Prometheus-class. Just like it sounds.

Light cruiser: Smallish, fast, well-armed. Perfect for short-term deep space missions, independent short-range tactical operations, first contacts, and other diplomatic functions. All of the power and ability of an explorer without the size or needed resources. Intrepid, Sabre, Cheyenne, Renaissance, Wambundu, and Constellation-classes.

Destroyer type: Well-armed, not as fast, medium exploration capabilities. Well-suited for long-term survey missions after initial deep space mission has passed. Also good as escorts or cargo couriers. Apollo, Hokule'a, Miranda-classes.

Frigate type: Lightly armed, fast. Perfect as escorts or cargo and personnel couriers. When someone says, "We need to get there fast and it's dangerous," they're asking for a frigate or a light cruiser. Norway, New Orleans, Steamrunner, Merced-classes.

Medical frigate: Olympic-class. Just like it sounds. Frigates escort them.

Scout type: Freedom and Centaur-classes. Fast, short-range. Work well as patrol craft.

Escort type: Defiant-class. Unofficially, she's a warship.

Surveyor type: Nova and Oberth-classes. Perfect for long-term, in-depth surveys (ha!) of planetary systems or sectors.

Transport type: Istanbul, Yorkshire, Sydney-classes. Personnel or cargo.

Freighter: Antares-class.

Runabout: Danube-class. Short-range surveys, escorts, personnel transports, and short-term research/surveying assignments.

All Starfleet starships are grouped by classes (design) and type (purpose). Unlike in the modern US Navy, the type does not necessarily refer to size (Apollo is definitely bigger than Intrepid) but rather to the type of mission the vessel was designed to carry out.

At least, that's my take on it.

arch101 February 15 2013 01:49 AM

Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations
 
Granted I gleaned this from only it's 3 appearances, but, I always got the impression the Sovereign Class wasn't really suited for the multi-year deep space exploration missions that the galaxy Class was designed for. The Sovereign Class seems more like a multi-mission capital ship, meant to conduct a certain mission and then return to a command base. It's like a Galaxy Class with much of the lab, flex space and civilian accommodation removed, hence it's dramatically reduced volume (despite it's length).


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.