RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,889
Posts: 5,330,035
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 493
Newest member: Mgroup Video

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 TV Series > Voyager

Voyager There's coffee in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 12 2013, 10:20 AM   #151
Stoo
Captain
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Location: Asa Bay
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

It's quite plausible that the federation would have upgraded its Galaxies since the launch of Enterprise-D. But it's just speculation. I dunno where Lighthammer was getting his infos from, one of the videogames maybe.
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2013, 11:19 AM   #152
dauntless
Lieutenant
 
dauntless's Avatar
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Taking into consideration that there were only supposed to be 6 Galaxy class ships in the fleet (Yamato, Enterprise, Odyssey, Galaxy, Venture and another one), I've always been amazed by how many pop up in the DS9 battle scenes. Anyhoo, in terms of being the most advanced, it would be the Intrepid class with it's bioneural gel packs...

In terms of power, I'd go for the Galaxy class any day. Beam some cheese over to Voyager and any battle would be your's.
dauntless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2013, 03:14 PM   #153
USS Firefly
Commander
 
USS Firefly's Avatar
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

When did they say there were only 6 Galaxy classes?
At the start of TNG?
Because if so, the Dominion war is ten years later and in that account there arent many Galaxy classes.
USS Firefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2013, 04:07 PM   #154
AllStarEntprise
Captain
 
AllStarEntprise's Avatar
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

^ Also remember Q Who and TBOBW occurred 2 to 3 years after the launch of the Galaxy class. With Starfleet losing 40 ships at Wolf 359. It's plausible to assume Starfleet decided to recover it's loses with more Galaxy class ships. It was a single galaxy class that had twice encountered a Borg cube, and survived.

I recall in TBOBW either Shelby or the Admiral (whose name i forget) saying they had several weapons in development to fight the Borg but they were still on the drawing board. My guess is Starfleet sanctioned the creation of defiant, sovereign, intrepid, prometheus and other starships not seen in TNG. Creating more galaxy class alongside the aforementioned ships seems like a smart step post Wolf 359. By DS9 SoA, WYLB and VOY Endgame, we can see there are many galaxy class ships.
AllStarEntprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2013, 04:11 PM   #155
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Even if a fleet of hundreds only roughly one out of ten was a Galaxy class.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2013, 10:08 PM   #156
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Regarding the Lakota upgrades, I would say we do not know one way or the other whether all Excelsiors were similarly upgraded.

We know that Leyton did this in secret, perhaps as a test to see if Defiant tech could be grafted onto older designs. We see that the Lakota at least held its own. Perhaps it was deemed a success, perhaps not - or perhaps Leyton's involvement scuttled the whole affair.

So we do know that it is certainly possible, but during the war we neither hear nor see anything to confirm it.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2013, 04:22 AM   #157
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

A certain measure of common sense suggests that when a sizable percentage of your fleet consists of older designs that have to hold the front line, you're going to give them every advantage they can. Yes, the Lakota upgrade was a secret sort of. But he had no problem revealing it right away. While I'm sure the whole Defiant/Lakota fight was probably classified that doesn't mean the Starfleet high brass isn't going to analyze the results and come to the conclusion that if they refit the whole Excelsior fleet, they'll stand a better chance against the Dominion.

If not before the war, certainly during it. During world war 2, capital ships were routinely modified and upgraded and seldom had the same specifications they did the prior year for example. You do what you have to to win.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2013, 03:34 PM   #158
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Agreed. I'm just saying there's no concrete evidence that Starfleet did so. If you wanted to, you could argue that the whole thing was a flop and any upgrades to existing ships might've been minimal.

Common sense certainly does point to Starfleet, as you say, giving every ship every advantage they could. Visually, all we really ever see from Excelsiors in the DW are the traditional beams and torpedoes from the traditional locations - but this doesn't disprove that they were upgraded in some way.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 09:50 AM   #159
Lighthammer
Fleet Captain
 
Lighthammer's Avatar
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Wow, where did my long post explaining sourcing go?

The long and short answer is there's been plenty of articles about Galaxy Class upgrades in Star Trek the Magazine and other officially sanctioned material. Star Trek Online, another officially sanctioned source cites a lot material about the history of the Galaxy class ships.

I had a much longer post explaining it but either some random admin decided to delete it? --- or the forums had some sort of weird reset.
__________________
Truth is a 3 edged sword
Lighthammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 01:26 AM   #160
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

^
Strictly speaking novels, tech manuals, magazines and what not are not considered canon since it wasn't on screen, no matter how "official" they are. Heck, STO can't even keep it's backstory consistent with the other novels.

While as I said a measure of common sense dictates that yeah, the ships were being upgraded, there's not really on screen documentation of that. I guess you could also say that Data's line in all good things that in the present they had a technobabble scanner, but didn't in season 1's past time period argues that, albeit weakly.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 10:02 AM   #161
Lighthammer
Fleet Captain
 
Lighthammer's Avatar
 
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Canon is whatever YOU precieve it to be. If you want to limit yourself to that, go right on ahead.

Personally, if Mike Okuda is going to sit down and write up a bunch of tech manuals based on designs he did for the show, are YOU really going to sit back and say "Hey Mike Okuda, hey, I like those books you did based on the designs you made for TNG, but you know what, they aren't Canon, because they didn't appear in the show".

Give me a break. Look up the definition of Canon and you'll find the definition states canon is what the end user defines as truisms they consider.

If you want to be that guy who would challenge people like Mike Okuda calling his information akin to fraud because it doesn't meet your definition of canon, go right on ahead, but then I demand you post a youtube video of yourself calling him and properly tagging so he can respond in kind.

Personally, for me, full on licensed material intended to keep the franchise going is good enough for my book of canon. This includes Path to 2409 (the relaunch novels), Star Trek Online and any official material such as tech manuals or Star Trek the Magazine.

The only thing I outright discriminate against is the games pre-Star Trek Online because they make no effort to remain in universe, the non-IGW comics (which I haven't directly followed, but I have read summaries and they do make one heck of an effort to follow Path to 2409) and books pre-Path to 2409 I consider good stories, but I'm never going to lean on them for anything beyond except in a few cases or a few series where they went to extraordinary efforts to remain in univers (IE SCE and Excaliber should probably be considered).

I should ALSO point out if YOU don't support the materials, at least in so far as to acknowledge they exist and acknowledge TPTB are working hard to expand the universe in other formats since CBS is so resistant to putting Star Trek back on the air, all you're doing is hurting the franchise. Each person who says "I don't care about Path to 2409 (the relaunch series)" has essentially said "I don't want anymore Star Trek".
__________________
Truth is a 3 edged sword
Lighthammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 11:54 AM   #162
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Lighthammer wrote: View Post
Canon is whatever YOU precieve it to be. If you want to limit yourself to that, go right on ahead.
That's head canon. The Trek canon is what's on screen.

Personally, if Mike Okuda is going to sit down and write up a bunch of tech manuals based on designs he did for the show, are YOU really going to sit back and say "Hey Mike Okuda, hey, I like those books you did based on the designs you made for TNG, but you know what, they aren't Canon, because they didn't appear in the show".

Give me a break. Look up the definition of Canon and you'll find the definition states canon is what the end user defines as truisms they consider.

If you want to be that guy who would challenge people like Mike Okuda calling his information akin to fraud because it doesn't meet your definition of canon, go right on ahead, but then I demand you post a youtube video of yourself calling him and properly tagging so he can respond in kind.
It's not calling it fraud at all. Canon and quality are NOT the same thing and shouldn't be mistaken as such! Mike always makes sure to put disclaimers in his books. Take a look at page viii in the Star Trek Chronology for an example:
We hope this chronology will make it easier for Star Trek writers to remain consistant with what's been established to date and for fans to keep track of Star Trek's elaborate back story. We do not, however, want this to intimidate our writer friends or to inhibit the imaginations of fans who may have differing interpretations of the Star Trek timeline. As such, we encourage both fans and writers to take this material with a grain of salt and to enjoy it in the spirit it was intended, as a fun way to explore the Star Trek universe.
As we saw in First Contact, Voyager and Enterprise, subsequent writers used it as a vague guideline, but weren't afraid to move and change things around to suit whatever story they were telling at the time.

Should Shane Johnson (the author of Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise) be personally offended that Mike Okuda contradicted many of his assuimptions about Treknology when he wrote the TNG manual? Or should Franz Joseph Schnaubelt (the guy who made the first Enterprise blueprints and Star Fleet Technical Manual in 1975) be upset that Shane and Mike each deviated from what he originally established?

(actually Franz probably would have legit cause to be angry and probably was, since everything from the Federation flag on down is a rip-off of what he designed, slightly modified from his 1975 Technical Manual to avoid paying royalties, but I'm digressing majorly here)

Personally, for me, full on licensed material intended to keep the franchise going is good enough for my book of canon. This includes Path to 2409 (the relaunch novels), Star Trek Online and any official material such as tech manuals or Star Trek the Magazine.

The only thing I outright discriminate against is the games pre-Star Trek Online because they make no effort to remain in universe, the non-IGW comics (which I haven't directly followed, but I have read summaries and they do make one heck of an effort to follow Path to 2409) and books pre-Path to 2409 I consider good stories, but I'm never going to lean on them for anything beyond except in a few cases or a few series where they went to extraordinary efforts to remain in univers (IE SCE and Excaliber should probably be considered).

I should ALSO point out if YOU don't support the materials, at least in so far as to acknowledge they exist and acknowledge TPTB are working hard to expand the universe in other formats since CBS is so resistant to putting Star Trek back on the air, all you're doing is hurting the franchise. Each person who says "I don't care about Path to 2409 (the relaunch series)" has essentially said "I don't want anymore Star Trek".
But why discriminate at all? Why limit yourself to one continuity that you've decided is the "right" one? IMO by doing so you're doing yourself a massive disservice. Look at the new movies, they've taken inspiration from several noncanon sources (most recently Diane Carey's old novel Dreadnought!, just substitute "USS Vengeance" for "USS Star Empire" and Admiral Marcus for Admiral Rittenhouse). Look at other big franchises - I loved Man of Steel and Smallville, despite them being totally separate versions of Superman's backstory. One doesn't have to be "right" while the other is "wrong"

I don't care for the Star Trek Online videogame and it's storyline, but I do love the Trek novelverse. They're each different versions of what might have happened after Star Trek Nemesis. Why does one have to be right and the other wrong any more than the versions of Superman or whatever?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 05:09 PM   #163
Saturn0660
Rear Admiral
 
Saturn0660's Avatar
 
Location: NE Ohio
View Saturn0660's Twitter Profile
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

The Galaxy class would mop the floor with the Intrepid class. Not even close.
__________________
How many lights do YOU see?
Saturn0660 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2013, 12:46 AM   #164
kgartm1185
Lieutenant
 
kgartm1185's Avatar
 
Location: USS Enterprise-D
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Lighthammer wrote: View Post
Canon is whatever YOU precieve it to be. If you want to limit yourself to that, go right on ahead.

Personally, if Mike Okuda is going to sit down and write up a bunch of tech manuals based on designs he did for the show, are YOU really going to sit back and say "Hey Mike Okuda, hey, I like those books you did based on the designs you made for TNG, but you know what, they aren't Canon, because they didn't appear in the show".

Give me a break. Look up the definition of Canon and you'll find the definition states canon is what the end user defines as truisms they consider.

If you want to be that guy who would challenge people like Mike Okuda calling his information akin to fraud because it doesn't meet your definition of canon, go right on ahead, but then I demand you post a youtube video of yourself calling him and properly tagging so he can respond in kind.

Personally, for me, full on licensed material intended to keep the franchise going is good enough for my book of canon. This includes Path to 2409 (the relaunch novels), Star Trek Online and any official material such as tech manuals or Star Trek the Magazine.

The only thing I outright discriminate against is the games pre-Star Trek Online because they make no effort to remain in universe, the non-IGW comics (which I haven't directly followed, but I have read summaries and they do make one heck of an effort to follow Path to 2409) and books pre-Path to 2409 I consider good stories, but I'm never going to lean on them for anything beyond except in a few cases or a few series where they went to extraordinary efforts to remain in univers (IE SCE and Excaliber should probably be considered).

I should ALSO point out if YOU don't support the materials, at least in so far as to acknowledge they exist and acknowledge TPTB are working hard to expand the universe in other formats since CBS is so resistant to putting Star Trek back on the air, all you're doing is hurting the franchise. Each person who says "I don't care about Path to 2409 (the relaunch series)" has essentially said "I don't want anymore Star Trek".
I agree, I get tired of everyone saying that something isn't canon, so it's not true. On the other hand, if canon is what the user wants it to be there would be arguments started about what's canon.
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it is scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth. It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based!" - Captain Jean-Luc Picard, 2368
kgartm1185 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2013, 01:17 AM   #165
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

The flaw in the concept is when you come out with someone else's opinions nicely presented and binded in a book called a "official" tech manual or something of the sort, that's all it is: someone else's opinion that just happens to be published. If you're going to debate the merits of a fictional setting on a tv and movie series, then the only common denominator is the actual presented product: the shows and the movies.

If you start arguing about what is and isn't canon with the supplemental materials, that's when you get into a gray area. Heck the show's creators can't even agree on the subject. Roddenberry cherry picked and declared a lot of things like TAS and some of the movies not to be canon, Berman said everything that appears on screen is. Jeri Taylor said her Voyager novels are canon because she's a producer. If they can't come to any consensus about the supplemental products then how can we? The answer is no... Trek canon is what is presented as the final product. It's the only common bit.

You put an awful lot of words in my mouth in that post of yours Lighthammer, which I don't appreciate one bit. Poor form and kindly don't do it again. If you want to discuss, in a -civilized- fashion what you consider part of your Trek experience go ahead. That's a unique point of view to everyone. But your childish post isn't the way to do it. Heck I agree with you for the most part, and consider many of the novels and games part of my own Trek experience. That doesn't mean it holds any weight in these debates as they are not the core material. They're supplemental and secondary and in the end the opinion of the person who wrote them. It doesn't matter how nicely binded and presented these are, they are just that.. opinions. You're entitled to share them, you're entitled to think they're full of it, you're not entitled to say they're fact despite how pretty they look.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
battles, fights, power, 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 11:37 AM.

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