RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,161
Posts: 5,402,394
Members: 24,750
Currently online: 534
Newest member: yadmank

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


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 August 18 2008, 09:07 PM   #61
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Deks wrote: View Post
Nothing substantiates that in regards to SF ships of the same class that leave construction yards.
AND NOTHING SUBSTANTIATES THAT OPINION ANY MORE THAN MINE.

And a *sigh* back atcha pal. I don't know why you're taking this so seriously, we're just postulating fiction that has no canon referent whatsoever. Neither of us is correct OR wrong, both our opinions are equally as likely. I'm just throwing out a "what if" thought process here. Although you seem to be working from assumptions that the real world doesn't support.

The five space shuttle orbiters were each substantially different from the other. While some parts were interchangeable, a LOT were not. No SR-71's instrument panel was identical to another's. No Nimitz Class carrier is 100% the same as the previous build. Etc, etc...

Some of the hypothetical variations on the GC I mention that you casually dismiss with refitting would require such extreme rework that it would be pointless. Say the main EPS interconnect trunk on ship 4 is moved 50 meters to port simply because some engineer realized a handier way to route it to make final assembly at the shipyard easier. This in no way invalidates the current position of the trunk on ships 1 thru 3, because they're already assembled, and rerouting the trunk would be expensive and pointless, not unlike this thread. All the ships work fine, but that leaves 4 thru 6's saucers unable to interchange with 1 thru 3's - an operation that Starfleet considers so unlikely anyway, as to eliminate any point in modifying the older ships.

I await your next rude attempt to treat me like an ignorant child.

Last edited by Forbin; August 18 2008 at 09:13 PM.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2008, 11:11 PM   #62
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Deks wrote: View Post
Sean_McCormick wrote: View Post
No, there are always small differences between the different ships of one class. In naval units, this is used to identify a specific ship with (at last in the past) people memorizing the differences from images.
Nothing substantiates that in regards to SF ships of the same class that leave construction yards.
Changes from ship to ship of the same class happen only because each crew customizes their own ship to their needs and their ideas as a result of personal experience in the past and the ones in the field.
If particular ideas results in a change that improves performance it will probably be incorporated class-wide (adapted for flee-wide use) ... and will become a standard for new ships of the same class that are constructed.

We are talking about fictional SF after all set 270 years into the future ... not reality.
Deks... just to put matters into perspective (and I'm not CHALLENGING you here... just askin')...

Would you mind telling us a little bit more about yourself? There are a number of folks who post regularly in this forum who have a massive amount of real-world knowledge about naval vessels (far more than I do... I'm an aerospace guy!).

You speak as though you believe you have a claim to being an "authority." Just to put matters into perspective, I'd personally like to know a little more about who you are. (and the same goes for the rest of you guys... except for those of you who I already know... but feel free to chime in for those here who DON'T know ya!)

Me, I'm a research and development engineer in the aerospace industry, though I've also worked for Emerson Electric, Ford, Maytag, and a couple of other you've never heard of throughout my career. I served in the military, but not in the Navy.

Next?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2008, 12:14 AM   #63
Plecostomus
Commodore
 
Location: Official forum sex god
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Plecostomus
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

I'm a humble sheetmetal mechanic who loves steam-engines, naval ships, steam-powered naval ships, nuclear reactors, and steam-powered nuclear-engined naval ships.

My background was originally plastics that's what my degree was in, but somehow I ended up bending metal for a living.

That's how I know about tolerances, sheetmetal terms and metrology.
Plecostomus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2008, 12:22 AM   #64
Colonel Midnight
Vice Admiral
 
Colonel Midnight's Avatar
 
Location: Colonel Midnight
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Forbin wrote: View Post
Deks wrote: View Post
Nothing substantiates that in regards to SF ships of the same class that leave construction yards.
AND NOTHING SUBSTANTIATES THAT OPINION ANY MORE THAN MINE.

And a *sigh* back atcha pal. I don't know why you're taking this so seriously, we're just postulating fiction that has no canon referent whatsoever. Neither of us is correct OR wrong, both our opinions are equally as likely. I'm just throwing out a "what if" thought process here. Although you seem to be working from assumptions that the real world doesn't support.

The five space shuttle orbiters were each substantially different from the other. While some parts were interchangeable, a LOT were not. No SR-71's instrument panel was identical to another's. No Nimitz Class carrier is 100% the same as the previous build. Etc, etc...

Some of the hypothetical variations on the GC I mention that you casually dismiss with refitting would require such extreme rework that it would be pointless. Say the main EPS interconnect trunk on ship 4 is moved 50 meters to port simply because some engineer realized a handier way to route it to make final assembly at the shipyard easier. This in no way invalidates the current position of the trunk on ships 1 thru 3, because they're already assembled, and rerouting the trunk would be expensive and pointless, not unlike this thread. All the ships work fine, but that leaves 4 thru 6's saucers unable to interchange with 1 thru 3's - an operation that Starfleet considers so unlikely anyway, as to eliminate any point in modifying the older ships.

I await your next rude attempt to treat me like an ignorant child.
Very true -- and I can guarantee that the first two ships of the newest USCG National Security Cutter class, the CGC BERTHOLF and the CGC WAESCHE are no way interchangeable... yet they were/are being built using the same blinking drawings.

Why? Again -- it's Configuration Management, pure and simple.

To put it another way -- think about handgun forensics like on CSI:Whatever. How many times have they (the CSI's) traced down any particular handgun to its owner by examining the lands-and-grooves of the bullets & barrel? Practically, I dare say, every episode! Yet I bet that any particular pistol from the same company and same production batch came from, wait for it... the same drawings!

A highly-simplified example from above, I'll admit, but still... it's called the reality of manufacturing.

Cheers,
-CM-

P/S Oh, and just to add -- my experience? I'm a Naval Engineer. I design ships for a living.
__________________
FOReWARneD is Forearmed.

0 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Last edited by Colonel Midnight; August 19 2008 at 12:24 AM. Reason: Added job & work experience
Colonel Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2008, 01:41 AM   #65
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Colonel Midnight wrote: View Post

P/S Oh, and just to add -- my experience? I'm a Naval Engineer. I design ships for a living.
Excellent! You're a valuable addition to this thread.

Me - graphic artist at a major aerospace electronics contractor for 27 years. No practical exposure outside the office, but exposed to plenty of stories from the field guys. And my father was a machinist his whole life, and a WWII fighter pilot with, again, plenty of stories.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2008, 03:49 AM   #66
Major Chord
Choir Boy Extraordinaire
 
Major Chord's Avatar
 
Location: Major Chord
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

I actually have no formal training in any of these fields, and even though I have an interest in Naval vessels, I have a very rudimentary understanding of their workings, and I am definitely not an expert on any of this. Anything I have contributed has been pure conjecture, and guess work based off of what I do know about how things work in the real world ( hence the battery analogy). Which is why I haven't challenged any of the ideas here, even though I disaggree with the "every ship is identical" theory.
__________________
One of Jeremiah Peabody's Polyunsaturated Quick-Dissolving Fast-Acting Pleasant-Tasting Green and Purple Pills
Major Chord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2008, 04:09 AM   #67
Plecostomus
Commodore
 
Location: Official forum sex god
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Plecostomus
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

My take on the situation is that given advances in the real world 400 years from now we'll avoid tolerance stacking and production tweeks between units and from a structural standpoint ships within a given block/flight will be near identical, frame and hullwise.

Internally, thanks to modular construction every ship will be different in some way.

Computerwise, docking the USS Venture's saucer with the USS Bright Star's engineering hull would lead to a massive reduction in capability while the primary and secondary computers figure each other out. There would be a basic set of commands that would remain the same (Microsoft Starship or Ubuntu Fleet Edition) but higher level stuff like library search and science research stuff and holodeck whatnot would be offline or degraded.
Plecostomus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2008, 05:41 AM   #68
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

As far as the big about bridges and engine rooms, there may be minor differences but the layout would be the same. This is broadly supported by "The Ultimate Computer", "The Omega Glory", "The Tholian Web", and "Where Silence Has Lease", to name a few.

Insofaras the origin of this thread, I would think it would be possible to construct a mission-specific saucer for a Galaxy-class ship for military purposes (or a Sovereign, or a Nebula, or an Excelsior, for that matter) but I don't see it as practical. It would seem more practical to build a squardon of Defiant-class escorts, load up the unmodified Galaxy with troops, and take care of business on the mission that way.
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2008, 09:48 AM   #69
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Forbin wrote: View Post
Deks wrote: View Post
Nothing substantiates that in regards to SF ships of the same class that leave construction yards.
AND NOTHING SUBSTANTIATES THAT OPINION ANY MORE THAN MINE.

And a *sigh* back atcha pal. I don't know why you're taking this so seriously, we're just postulating fiction that has no canon referent whatsoever. Neither of us is correct OR wrong, both our opinions are equally as likely. I'm just throwing out a "what if" thought process here. Although you seem to be working from assumptions that the real world doesn't support.

The five space shuttle orbiters were each substantially different from the other. While some parts were interchangeable, a LOT were not. No SR-71's instrument panel was identical to another's. No Nimitz Class carrier is 100% the same as the previous build. Etc, etc...

Some of the hypothetical variations on the GC I mention that you casually dismiss with refitting would require such extreme rework that it would be pointless. Say the main EPS interconnect trunk on ship 4 is moved 50 meters to port simply because some engineer realized a handier way to route it to make final assembly at the shipyard easier. This in no way invalidates the current position of the trunk on ships 1 thru 3, because they're already assembled, and rerouting the trunk would be expensive and pointless, not unlike this thread. All the ships work fine, but that leaves 4 thru 6's saucers unable to interchange with 1 thru 3's - an operation that Starfleet considers so unlikely anyway, as to eliminate any point in modifying the older ships.

I await your next rude attempt to treat me like an ignorant child.
My post was not written in an attempt to insult anyone nor was I treating you as an 'ignorant child'.
If my post insulted you in some way, then I apologize.
I would like to make a suggestion that you do not jump to conclusions in ascertaining how I treat others simply based on what is written due to the fact that textual information or description of events/situations (and whatnot) is not always a representation of the writer's present frame of mind or how they perceive others (unless it's explicitly stated/confirmed by the same poster/writer).

As for your opinion on everything else, ... we will just agree to disagree.
I leave an open mind to the possibility that what you say may be accurate and what I say may be incorrect ... but same goes vice versa.

A little reminder of which we are all aware of: SF is a fictional organization with technological capability surpassing our own by almost 300 years (and having contact with alien races that were in space for over 1000 years before humans in that fictional reality).
While some aspects of it's technology and how things are done will be vaguely similar to our own, you cannot expect everything to be the same and operate in a way you imagine.

Like I said, I leave an open mind to the possibility you may be correct, but I also do the same for myself.
When it comes to Trek, I primarily operate on what was witnessed on-screen and apply some logic (along with theoretical possibilities subject to change).
I don't apply contemporary real-life examples all the time of how things are done when it comes to design and construction of fictional star-ships because WE don't make star-ships that are warp capable, have warp cores, replicators and computers so advanced that would put anything we dish out (and potentially for some time to come) to shame.
So taking into consideration everything I said, there is enough to theoretically support my own claim that all ships of the same class leave construction yards identical (ending up with minute changes in how a ship operates based on each crew customizing it to their own needs and wants in the field), and that ships of the same class which have been constructed at an earlier time would be re-fitted to accommodate any design changes that SF might include as time passes.

As for your point that SF would not consider modification or re-fit (including extensive design alterations) is easily disputed through an example of transition of TOS to TMP and various examples from on-screen evidence.
The 1701 original was re-fitted extensively resulting in design changes (while retaining the basic aspect of the TOS version) which encompassed both external and internal changes.
Having said that, I do not think that SF would consider modification of older ships 'unlikely'.


Deks... just to put matters into perspective (and I'm not CHALLENGING you here... just askin')...

Would you mind telling us a little bit more about yourself? There are a number of folks who post regularly in this forum who have a massive amount of real-world knowledge about naval vessels (far more than I do... I'm an aerospace guy!).
Suffice to say that I'm an artist with interests, skills and knowledge in various fields (incl. computers) and that my own knowledge of real-naval vessels is limited.
To that effect, I will repeat what I stated before, I don't think applying examples of how things are done in real-life are applicable to Trek all the time.

You speak as though you believe you have a claim to being an "authority." Just to put matters into perspective, I'd personally like to know a little more about who you are. (and the same goes for the rest of you guys... except for those of you who I already know... but feel free to chime in for those here who DON'T know ya!)
Slight alteration: I don't 'believe' (any aspect/version of that word doesn't exist in my vocabulary).
I never stated of having an 'authority' of any kind.
If you arrived to such a conclusion because of what I wrote, then it's your personal assumption/interpretation.
As stated earlier, I merely wrote my own opinion on the subject matter based on what we saw on-screen and using some logical deduction while not necessarily applying real-life examples (which would essentially be pointless most of the time when it comes to Trek).
__________________
We are who we choose to be but also have predefined aspects of our personalities we are born with, and make art that defines us.

Last edited by Deks; August 19 2008 at 04:31 PM.
Deks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2008, 02:30 PM   #70
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

^Then you shouldn't quote a person and start your post with "*sigh*" or some other condescending remark.

As for your opinion on everything else, ... we will just agree to disagree.
I leave an open mind to the possibility that what you say may be accurate and what I say may be incorrect ... but same goes vice versa.
Yes, agreed, that's what I'm sayin'.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2008, 04:27 PM   #71
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Forbin wrote: View Post
^Then you shouldn't quote a person and start your post with "*sigh*" or some other condescending remark.
The 'sigh' was something I do on my own every now/then and wasn't directed towards you.
Remember what I mentioned earlier regarding written info not being a direct reflection of how a poster/writer feels towards others and that people often misunderstand what is written due to jumping to conclusions and personal perception of it?
Not everyone perceive 'sigh' in the same capacity.
__________________
We are who we choose to be but also have predefined aspects of our personalities we are born with, and make art that defines us.

Last edited by Deks; August 19 2008 at 04:35 PM.
Deks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2008, 04:54 PM   #72
Tigger
Fleet Captain
 
Tigger's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Re: How About Replacing the Galaxy saucer with dedicated weapons platf

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Is it theoretically possible for a "docking system" to be designed which would be loose enough, or "adjustable" enough, to permit every saucer and every secondary hull in the fleet to connect? Oh, I'm sure it would be.
Forbin wrote: View Post
Unless ship #6 off the line is using a docking clamp system with a different number of clamps in different locations than ship #4; unless lessons learned from ships 1 thru 3 made them move the EPS taps 50 meters starboard and 6 meters farther aft on ships 4 thru 6; unless the battle bridge was moved forward on ship #5 to make room for a new ECM system and the turbolift shaft had to be repositioned 14 meters to port.... In such cases you're just not gonna be able to fit the saucer from ship #4 to the hull of ship #6.
It should be noted that I specifically said "stock saucers" built to the same specification and with very tight tolerances.

So a turbolift tube that is supposed to be, say one meter in diameter, making it one meter and one millimeter in diameter really shouldn't be all that great a headache for the designers, the manufacturers, or the turbolift as it tools around the tubes.

It should go without saying that I agree that a saucer or a neck that has either been significantly changed or built to a new, different specification will not be able to mount to a structure built to a pre-existing and different specification.
__________________
Chris "Tigger" Wallace
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
galaxy-class, technobabble

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 09:30 PM.

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