RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,350
Posts: 5,502,723
Members: 25,120
Currently online: 569
Newest member: Gaytrekgeek

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11

Frakes: Sign Me Up!
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


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 15 2013, 02:32 AM   #16
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

The idea of a multi-mission starship really could fit the Galaxy-class as well if we only went with onscreen material. Likewise, there's nothing that really says the Sovereign-class can't be assigned to multi-year exploration missions.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2013, 05:40 AM   #17
Captain_Amasov
Captain
 
Captain_Amasov's Avatar
 
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
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
I actually got "Explorer Type 2" from this poster made at the time "First Contact" was released:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__...way_poster.jpg

Thanks for the replies guys!
Captain_Amasov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 9 2013, 11:51 AM   #18
ProwlAlpha
Fleet Captain
 
ProwlAlpha's Avatar
 
Location: Florrum
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

From what we saw on screen, I have always gathered that the Galaxy-class was equivalent to the RN's Admiral-class battlecruiser (HMS Hood). They are both large and well equipped as flagships and they represent the pinnacle of each generation, however, they had fatal flaws that were exploited fatally in battle.

The Galaxy-class was designed and built during a turbulent time in UFP history, difficulties with the Klingons, the Cardassian Wars, the Tzenkethi War, and the Galen Border Conflicts were fought in the 2340s and 2350s, yet, they were nearly ended or in the process of ending in early 2360s, and so the Enterprise and her sisters were converted to a more peaceful role, the explorer.

I see the Sovereigns as the UFP equivalent to the USN Iowa-class battleship. They are fast, they are able to take a pounding, and can deliver one too. They were designed in the mid-2360s and they got to see the rise of the Romulans, the Borg, aggressive Klingon factions, and the Maquis insurgency.
__________________
"As my sweet mother always said, 'son, if one hostage is good, two are better, and three, well, that's just good business!'"
ProwlAlpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 10 2013, 03:35 AM   #19
Marcus Porcius Cato
Commander
 
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

ProwlAlpha wrote: View Post
From what we saw on screen, I have always gathered that the Galaxy-class was equivalent to the RN's Admiral-class battlecruiser (HMS Hood). They are both large and well equipped as flagships and they represent the pinnacle of each generation, however, they had fatal flaws that were exploited fatally in battle.

The Galaxy-class was designed and built during a turbulent time in UFP history, difficulties with the Klingons, the Cardassian Wars, the Tzenkethi War, and the Galen Border Conflicts were fought in the 2340s and 2350s, yet, they were nearly ended or in the process of ending in early 2360s, and so the Enterprise and her sisters were converted to a more peaceful role, the explorer.

I see the Sovereigns as the UFP equivalent to the USN Iowa-class battleship. They are fast, they are able to take a pounding, and can deliver one too. They were designed in the mid-2360s and they got to see the rise of the Romulans, the Borg, aggressive Klingon factions, and the Maquis insurgency.
Maybe, maybe not. After all the Hood's armor and structural defect were known even when she was finishing the construction. Jutland had shown that the Royal Navy's Battlecruisers had insufficient armors and Hood was over stressed in structure. Moreover Hood herself was due for refit for many years by 1941 which was deferred for one reason or another.

Screen and background material seems to show that Galaxy-Class was given more periodic upgrade. And if the TNG Tech manual is correct was never imagined as a front line warship (which Starfleet is not really supposed to have until lunching of the Defiant in 2370) in a way that Sovereign Class seems to be designed from the beginning.
__________________
"A person without any sense of shame is no longer a human being."

Mencius, Chinese Philosopher (c. 372-289 BCE)
Marcus Porcius Cato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 10 2013, 07:55 AM   #20
ProwlAlpha
Fleet Captain
 
ProwlAlpha's Avatar
 
Location: Florrum
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

Well the Hood was considered by their standards, the pinnacle of RN shipbuilding and so received little in the upgrading the forward magazine.

Hate to say it but the TNG tech manual says very little in regards to the political atmosphere of that class' time period in which Trek has shown to be very turbulent and violent. Besides the time table presented would make the Galaxy obsolete upon commissioning.
__________________
"As my sweet mother always said, 'son, if one hostage is good, two are better, and three, well, that's just good business!'"
ProwlAlpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 10 2013, 09:46 AM   #21
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

The process seemed to be "dynamic", though: even if planning began decades before launch, there was major engine development work going on fairly late, or else the young Leah Brahms could not have been responsible for it. (The same with Larry Marvick in TOS.)

So the class could still have been quite up to date at launch. Things like hull shape apparently don't matter in the end, as evidenced by the variety of shapes we see, and the longevity of certain examples of them.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2013, 05:43 AM   #22
JessDD
Lieutenant
 
JessDD's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

The Galaxy class must have been designed for much more than exploring though. Taking a look at Voyager, it had something like 1/8th the crew of the Enterprise and was less than half the size, and yet it was classified as a deep-space explorer (at least to my recollection it was).

I would argue the Galaxy class ships were originally designed for battle and/or tactical operations, and exploring just happened to be a happy by-product of its design.
__________________
This is my website!
JessDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2013, 09:41 AM   #23
Infern0
Captain
 
Infern0's Avatar
 
Re: Galaxy & Sovereign-class designations

JessDD wrote: View Post
The Galaxy class must have been designed for much more than exploring though. Taking a look at Voyager, it had something like 1/8th the crew of the Enterprise and was less than half the size, and yet it was classified as a deep-space explorer (at least to my recollection it was).

I would argue the Galaxy class ships were originally designed for battle and/or tactical operations, and exploring just happened to be a happy by-product of its design.
I have heard in the past, the term "Mobile Starbase" thrown around in regards to the Galaxy, in general I think it was designed to do whatever Starfleet needed at the time, huge and versatile featuring the best of everything.
Infern0 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 03:28 AM.

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