RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,957
Posts: 5,391,295
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 490
Newest member: Jadakiss

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 14 2013, 12:39 AM   #1
Captain_Amasov
Captain
 
Captain_Amasov's Avatar
 
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.

Last edited by Captain_Amasov; February 14 2013 at 12:49 AM.
Captain_Amasov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 01:49 AM   #2
Tiberius
Commodore
 
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

They mean whatever you want them to mean.
Tiberius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 01:53 AM   #3
SchwEnt
Fleet Captain
 
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.
SchwEnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 03:34 AM   #4
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
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.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 10:35 AM   #5
Infern0
Captain
 
Infern0's Avatar
 
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

SchwEnt wrote: View Post
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.
Infern0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 03:10 PM   #6
Saturn0660
Rear Admiral
 
Saturn0660's Avatar
 
Location: NE Ohio
View Saturn0660's Twitter Profile
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

Galaxy = "ultimate potential" AKA= Very costly to build and maintain.
__________________
How many lights do YOU see?
Saturn0660 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 04:08 PM   #7
Squiggy
LORD SHIT SUPREME
 
Squiggy's Avatar
 
Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
View Squiggy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy
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.
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 04:43 PM   #8
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
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.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 04:46 PM   #9
anh165
Commander
 
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

King Daniel wrote: View Post

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.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 08:15 PM   #10
Timo
Admiral
 
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.
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
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 10:57 PM   #11
TheRoyalFamily
Commodore
 
TheRoyalFamily's Avatar
 
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

Squiggy wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
You perceive wrongly. I feel unimaginable happiness wasting time talking with women. I'm that type of human.
TheRoyalFamily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14 2013, 11:36 PM   #12
JoeZhang
Vice Admiral
 
JoeZhang's Avatar
 
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

Where does this "Explorer" and "Explorer type 2" come from?
JoeZhang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 12:05 AM   #13
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

JoeZhang wrote: View Post
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
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 12:21 AM   #14
DavidGutierrez
Lieutenant
 
Location: Texas
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
For the world is hollow, and I have touched the sky...
DavidGutierrez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 01:49 AM   #15
arch101
Fleet Captain
 
arch101's Avatar
 
Location: 10 miles west of the Universal Hub
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).
__________________
BOSTON is STRONG with The Force
arch101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:49 AM.

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