RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,545
Posts: 5,513,323
Members: 25,144
Currently online: 454
Newest member: ShadowL

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 29 2014, 10:33 PM   #331
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Ithekro wrote: View Post
Enterprise-E seems (from what we see of it) to not be on a long term exploration mission. Every time we see it, it is in Federation space on some other kind of mission. It may not have been designed as a long range explorer like the Galaxy-class...
To be fair, the idea that the Galaxy-class was a long-range explorer is really more of an off-screen thing and doesn't really hold up that well onscreen. Looking at it purely from that perspective, the missions for both the Galaxy- and Sovereign-classes appear to be the same, that of a large multipurpose vessel.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2014, 10:59 PM   #332
Viper78
Lieutenant Commander
 
Viper78's Avatar
 
Location: Scotland
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

We don't really know from the films what type of ship the Sovereign class is. We get the impression that the Galaxy class is a long range explorer, hence the reason for families onboard.

We also don't know if the Enterprise E itself had families onboard as it's not indicated from what we see on screen and because of this I had always assumed that the Sovereign class had a different mission profile.

I think the Soveriegn class was designed to compliment the Galaxy class rather than replace it as it would have likely been in it's design stage when the Galaxy class was launched.
__________________
IF IN DOUBT, FLAT OUT!!!
Colin McRae 1968-2007
Viper78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2014, 11:22 PM   #333
Ithekro
Fleet Captain
 
Ithekro's Avatar
 
Location: Republic of California
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

The Galaxy-class would seem to be designed as a long range explorer by how Picard and others describe their mission early in the first season and perhaps into the second season. After that the whims of the writers and other things kept Enterprise in Federation space for the most part.

The Sovereign-class is an unknown as we only see it in three films. Though the line from Picard in Insurrection might be a clue, "Remember when we use to be explorers". Either the ship is not set up as a long range explorer, or the duties of the "Flagship of the Federation" has overwritten the task of exploration for the Enterprise and her crew. Even after the Dominion War, it seems like Captain Picard is assigned as "first response" type missions by Starfleet Command.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2014, 11:43 PM   #334
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Viper78 wrote: View Post
We don't really know from the films what type of ship the Sovereign class is. We get the impression that the Galaxy class is a long range explorer, hence the reason for families onboard.
But if you really look at the Galaxy-class, though, the actual impression is that of a large jack-of-all-trades vessel that can do a wide variety of missions. The reason for families onboard was never really given onscreen.
Ithekro wrote: View Post
The Galaxy-class would seem to be designed as a long range explorer by how Picard and others describe their mission early in the first season and perhaps into the second season.
The Enterprise carried out many different kinds of missions throughout its lifetime, including exploration, defense, and even fairly routine cargo deliveries. The ship was able to quickly return back to Earth whenever it wanted to, however.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 04:15 AM   #335
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
So really, I'm gonna call B.S. on the whole "The Borg and the Dominion made Starfleet realize that having families around was a bad idea" theory.
Mostly becuase you believe imaginary civilians which were never seen or mentioned were just hiding on the Enterprise-E.
No, mostly because your claim that "it finally sunk in that they were a military organization" as a result of the Borg and Dominion incursions just doesn't hold water for me. Even if we do for a moment accept the above theory as a reasonable extrapolation of why the families eventually 'disappeared' from Starfleet ships, the fact is that we saw families on the D for four whole seasons (and one movie) after that Borg battle. So I just don't find the idea credible. Why wait five years before moving families off the front line, if Wolf 359 was apparently supposed to be some kind of 'line in the sand' moment for the Federation?
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 06:35 AM   #336
MauriceNavidad
Vice Admiral
 
MauriceNavidad's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View MauriceNavidad's Twitter Profile
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Disco wrote: View Post
...The E was almost as large as the D so no reason why there wouldn't be children aboard.
In terms of volume, the Sovereign class Enterprise-E is roughly 40% the size of the Galaxy class Enterprise-D (ray-tracing programs used to calculate volumes on multiple Galaxy and Sovereign models for Trek mods; Galaxy consistently comes in at ~5.2 million m^3, Sovereign at ~2.0 million m^3).
Source (link).
Not "canon" but based on CG models based on official materials, so make of that what you will.
__________________
* * *
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
― Winston S. Churchill
MauriceNavidad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 10:54 AM   #337
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Ithekro wrote: View Post
Even after the Dominion War, it seems like Captain Picard is assigned as "first response" type missions by Starfleet Command.
That's the problem with being good at your job. Sometimes your boss keeps you around because he can't trust anybody else to do it.
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 10:57 AM   #338
Viper78
Lieutenant Commander
 
Viper78's Avatar
 
Location: Scotland
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Maurice wrote: View Post
Disco wrote: View Post
...The E was almost as large as the D so no reason why there wouldn't be children aboard.
In terms of volume, the Sovereign class Enterprise-E is roughly 40% the size of the Galaxy class Enterprise-D (ray-tracing programs used to calculate volumes on multiple Galaxy and Sovereign models for Trek mods; Galaxy consistently comes in at ~5.2 million m^3, Sovereign at ~2.0 million m^3).
Source (link).
Not "canon" but based on CG models based on official materials, so make of that what you will.
This is another reasons I assumed there were no families onboard the Enterprise-E and why I consider the Sovereign class a replacement for another class of ship (Such as the Excelsior) rather than a direct replacement for the Galaxy class.

Although the Sovereign class is the longest ship in starfleet (mainly due to the length of the nacells) it's probably the 4th largest in stafleet behind the Galaxy, Ambassador and Nebula.

Like I said in a previous post, although more advanced at launch, Picard and Riker might have considered the Enterprise-E and mission profile as a bit of a downgrade.
__________________
IF IN DOUBT, FLAT OUT!!!
Colin McRae 1968-2007
Viper78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 11:40 AM   #339
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

^ I'm loving the Colin McCrae quote in your sig, Viper78!
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 12:13 PM   #340
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Viper78 wrote: View Post
Maurice wrote: View Post
Disco wrote: View Post
...The E was almost as large as the D so no reason why there wouldn't be children aboard.
In terms of volume, the Sovereign class Enterprise-E is roughly 40% the size of the Galaxy class Enterprise-D (ray-tracing programs used to calculate volumes on multiple Galaxy and Sovereign models for Trek mods; Galaxy consistently comes in at ~5.2 million m^3, Sovereign at ~2.0 million m^3).
Source (link).
Not "canon" but based on CG models based on official materials, so make of that what you will.
This is another reasons I assumed there were no families onboard the Enterprise-E and why I consider the Sovereign class a replacement for another class of ship (Such as the Excelsior) rather than a direct replacement for the Galaxy class.

Although the Sovereign class is the longest ship in starfleet (mainly due to the length of the nacells) it's probably the 4th largest in stafleet behind the Galaxy, Ambassador and Nebula.

Like I said in a previous post, although more advanced at launch, Picard and Riker might have considered the Enterprise-E and mission profile as a bit of a downgrade.
At the time of FC, I'd argue that the Galaxy-class was nowhere near the end of its service life, the implication being that similar ships of a new kind were not needed. The Excelsior-class, on the other hand, might well have been, though.
__________________
CorporalCaptain

Last edited by Cookies and Cake; July 30 2014 at 11:09 PM.
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 12:16 PM   #341
Viper78
Lieutenant Commander
 
Viper78's Avatar
 
Location: Scotland
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Lance wrote: View Post
^ I'm loving the Colin McCrae quote in your sig, Viper78!
Thanks
__________________
IF IN DOUBT, FLAT OUT!!!
Colin McRae 1968-2007
Viper78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 11:06 PM   #342
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

In terms of volume, the Sovereign class Enterprise-E is roughly 40% the size of the Galaxy class Enterprise-D (ray-tracing programs used to calculate volumes on multiple Galaxy and Sovereign models for Trek mods; Galaxy consistently comes in at ~5.2 million m^3, Sovereign at ~2.0 million m^3).
The Saratoga was smaller than both the Enterprise D and E, and she carried families. The ship Vico in the episode Hero Worship was smaller than the Saratoga, and she also carried families.

Unless we're talking about a specialty ship like the Defiant, the determining factor on whether there would be family members aboard would probably be the duration of the mission, and not the size of the ship. If mommy or daddy were going to be gone for months at a time, they'd want the kids with them.

Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 31 2014, 07:18 AM   #343
Ithekro
Fleet Captain
 
Ithekro's Avatar
 
Location: Republic of California
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

One wonders what USS Saratoga's mission was before it got called to Wolf 359.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 31 2014, 09:51 AM   #344
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

It could have been just routine patrol and civil service operations.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 31 2014, 01:16 PM   #345
Mage
Commodore
 
Mage's Avatar
 
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Maurice wrote: View Post
Disco wrote: View Post
...The E was almost as large as the D so no reason why there wouldn't be children aboard.
In terms of volume, the Sovereign class Enterprise-E is roughly 40% the size of the Galaxy class Enterprise-D (ray-tracing programs used to calculate volumes on multiple Galaxy and Sovereign models for Trek mods; Galaxy consistently comes in at ~5.2 million m^3, Sovereign at ~2.0 million m^3).
Source (link).
Not "canon" but based on CG models based on official materials, so make of that what you will.

To chime in on the size discussion.... I found this on the good ol' interwebz, and I think it makes sense...

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8...izecompare.jpg

Taking the official length of both classes, and overlaying them like this, gives you a pretty idea of how small the Sovereign class really is compared to the Galaxy class.

FYI, I love the Sovereign class.
__________________
Niner. Lurker. Browncoat.

Last edited by Mage; July 31 2014 at 01:29 PM.
Mage 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 01:26 PM.

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