Starships of the Galaxy Era

[Kamen Rider Blade]

My main problem with the Secondary Hull is the "Sudden Waist Pinch".

WHY DOES it exist?

Wouldn't a simple tube be easier to design / work out of?

All those complicated curves + pinched waist for less internal volume?

WTF?

I have no issues with big secondary hulls if done right, but that strange "Feminie Waist" pinch on the Star Drive makes no sense.

And why arrange the Nacelles in a "Cruciform" arrangement?

 

[Timo]

IIRC, Duane herself specified + instead of X. The staggering was my take to make the thing at least a bit less bulky-looking.

The waist was a concession to the multihull idea. Why have a neck between saucer and cigar? VOY and the TNG movies had ships doing just fine without. Perhaps necks and waists are good for separation? So instead of one insanely big central cigar, I separated a bit of it - functionally, it's the big bay for a big wing of fighting auxiliaries, but also something the ship can ditch when needed. Perhaps in emergencies, perhaps to establish a detached center of operations in orbit.

In any case, Duane declares these ships "monsters" in The Wounded Sky. "Pretty" isn't in the specs.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

So a flying hanger by itself? What protections can that hanger have when detached?

Does it have it's own generators, Shields, defense grid when alone and away from the mother ship?

 

[Timo]

I think I gave it full impulse drive (the nozzles or radiators face forward when it's attached, and separation reveals a further set at the butt end of the ship proper, too) and some phasers; the command center is below the aft lip.

The other extra hulls, with deflector/sensor dishes and impulse engines, aren't supposed to separate as such. They were just positioned that way so that the cruciform nacelles could easily peek past all the structures.

If the two separate Duane descriptions are to be put together, though, they could be put together in many ways. "Multihull" is already consistent with just two hulls: today, if something has more than two, it's immediately "hyper" (cf. multispectral vs. hyperspectral). But a cluster of five might be cool as well.

Plenty of terminology to mix and match, too. Are these destroyers, battleships or defenders? Is one of those perhaps a class name rather than a description? "Battleship" or "destroyer" could be descriptive, while "defender" could be a palatable futuristic name for badass warships.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Arpy]

Interesting pic @Timo, thanks for posting.

I thought I remembered a line maybe in The Empty Chair referencing the ship’s lower saucer or smaller saucer. I placed it in my head maybe about where the deflector is on your ship.

Multi-hulled was confusing, given that saucer and stardrive are already multi, but I took it to mean multiple saucers and possibly stardrives.

 

[Dukhat]

I don't think Duane understood her own terminology. She certainly didn't seem to understand math.

 

[Gabriel]

Some ships and starbases from the Galaxy Class Era that I kinda like:

New Orleans Class, aft
Cheyenne Class
Olympic Class, pre-lit, lit
Probert's Enterprise-C
Saber Class, Mark II (fan)
Coontz Class (fan)
'Galaxy-Era Oberth' (fan)
Federation Starliner (comics)
Tantalus Penal Colony (comics)
Celestial Class Spacedock (mine)

(omitted: Galaxy Class, Nebula Class, Intrepid Class)

I love the New Orleans. I hope one day somebody makes deck plans for them. It’s unlikely but I can always Hope

 

[Arpy]

I don't think Duane understood her own terminology. She certainly didn't seem to understand math.

I started reading The Wounded Sky earlier looking for details on the ship, and her presentation of how warp works is different from what we think of it. Hers is more akin to the hyperspace of Star Wars or Babylon 5, and is fine for the period in which the book was written (she's a better writer than a lot who came after), but not really kosher today.

Heck, the idea of these massive ships at all doesn't fit with canon, but they're fun to imagine all the same. I think we all have parallel-universes/head-canons (multiple ones) we enjoy, so what the hell.

 

[Arpy]

Probert’s Ambassador Class: although by definition not of the Galaxy Era, I imagine this gorgeous ship could have been a ubiquitous contemporary of the Galaxy’s, especially early on. Flyby. I love its elegance and sophistication and the verisimilitude with which it was rendered. I admit I have an easier time imagining this in a real world context than I do the canon version, which works better as a two-foot model on a two-foot screen than life-size. It also makes more sense as an intermediate class between the B and the D than the canon version, which came out before we ever saw the Enterprise-B and which looks more like an intermediate between a clunky rendering of the A and the D, not the B and the D.

That said, this original Ambassador is almost too perfectly transitional — after all, the Refit isn’t a perfect mashup of TOS-E and the Excelsior… Maybe, in fact, the Ambassador should be even more distinctive and of its own unique era, like this?

(Also notable is Sternbach’s initial draw-up of Probert’s Ambassador, from this article from Forgotten Trek, which looks like a mashup of the two and which might have made it to the screen if Sternbach had had more time.)

Still, Probert’s Ambassador is wonderful, with its own era-specific esthetics and technologies — like the stardrive’s vertical impulse tower and the saucer’s flower-petal landing-gear (we’re the aliens in the flying saucers, man!), which also makes more sense than GEN’s Galaxy skidding into unknown terrain on nothing but the wind and a prayer). In the Trekyards episode featuring the designer himself, Probert points out some other era-specific features — like a detachable and warp-capable bridge assembly?! Check out also the spherical Stellar Cartography and long stardrive shuttlebay in this ortho.

The ship is included in Star Trek Online (still not canon!).

Different from canon and, separately, my concept of the Ambassador Era, check out another fan’s gleaming concept of the Ambassador bridge and interiors. Look at that shuttlebay!

Finally, I sometimes wonder if Probert would have preferred gold Bussards and, like in TOS, non-glowing nacelles.

 

[Arpy]

In my head canon, I imagine Probert’s Ambassador as a ubiquitous capital ship of the Federation and present in the “real” DS9 battles — along with some of the other ships in this thread that are more era-appropriate and realistic than the models they did use for jarring budgetary reasons. Not that budget's a sufficient excuse IMHO. They could have saved money and made the battles more realistic by spreading the ships farther apart. Maybe then we’d have gotten newer ships, shield bubbles, and fewer reused clips from previous episodes, as well.

Imagine if, starting with TNG, they’d had the budget to include this ship and others from the Probert Ambassador Era. Not only kitbashes either — I like that the Excelsior and the Grissom are contemporaries yet different. Maybe we'd get to see one or two others from the Excelsior Era as well (check out page 34!) instead of ships older still, from 90 years prior.

What might have the Brittain or even the Stargazer have looked like in that alternate universe? It’s quite a leap for Picard to go from commanding a Stargazer four eras back to commanding the flagship!

What might have the Saratoga have looked like? If Sisko had his family on his ship, maybe it should have been a larger one. In the Trekyards episode above, Probert suggests maybe spouses were permitted on the Ambassador Class before whole families on the Galaxy.

With a greater budget, other ships could have been originals too instead of retreads. How much could have been learned from pitting the Constellation Class Hathaway against a Galaxy in “Peak Performance”?

And what about all those Excelsiors the admirals were ferried about in? I wouldn't mind if in some future remastered fan-cut, they were replaced with Ambassador or Galaxy Era transports, clippers, and corvettes.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

What might have the Saratoga have looked like? If Sisko had his family on his ship, maybe it should have been a larger one. In the Trekyards episode above, Probert suggests maybe spouses were permitted on the Ambassador Class before whole families on the Galaxy.

Given my preference for systemic naming, I'd've put the Saratoga as a New-Orleans class (place names).

With a greater budget, other ships could have been originals too instead of retreads. How much could have been learned from pitting the Constellation Class Hathaway against a Galaxy in “Peak Performance”?

To quote from the episode:

Peak Performance [TNG]. We're in "Bridge"
RIKER: She's really been stripped down, Captain.
KOLRAMI: The only offensive systems you'll need will be simulated by computer.
RIKER: What's the Zakdornian word for mismatch?
KOLRAMI: Challenge. We do not whine about the inequities of life. And how you perform in a mismatch is precisely what is of interest to Starfleet. After all, when one is in the superior position, one is expected to win.
PICARD: Screen off. You have the Bridge, Mister Data.
DATA: Aye, sir.

Peak Performance [TNG]. We're in "Worf's quarters" to reddit markup
WORF: Well, still
RIKER: You're out-manned, you're out-gunned, you're out-equipped. What else have you got?
WORF: Guile.
RIKER: Join me.
WORF: The honour is to serve.

And what about all those Excelsiors the admirals were ferried about in? I wouldn't mind if in some future remastered fan-cut, they were replaced with Ambassador or Galaxy Era transports, clippers, and corvettes.

Ambassador works for a few, the Gorkon, the Roosevelt and the Sarek are the best fits there (political figures), however other ships named for people the Crockett, the Fredrickson, the Grissom, the Malinche, maybe the Crazy Horse, the Farragut and the Hood work at least a bit. As noted above, location-based names (Berlin, Cairo, Charleston, Dallas, Melbourne, Okinawa, Paris, Valley Forge) could have been New Orleans-class, the Lakota and potentially the Crazy Horse could be Cheyenne-class, and the Intrepid and the Fearless (plus the Repulse [registration NCC-2544] though it is possibly the only one other than the Excelsior that does make sense as an Excelsior naming wise).

 

[Arpy]

RIKER: She's really been stripped down, Captain.
KOLRAMI: The only offensive systems you'll need will be simulated by computer.
RIKER: What's the Zakdornian word for mismatch?
KOLRAMI: Challenge. We do not whine about the inequities of life. And how you perform in a mismatch is precisely what is of interest to Starfleet. After all, when one is in the superior position, one is expected to win.
PICARD: Screen off. You have the Bridge, Mister Data.
DATA: Aye, sir.

Oh, I remember. But if they were testing guile, they could have done that in a Kobayashi Maru-like simulator. I imagine there are lots of Psych Tests like that at the Academy. To use actual tech, they're testing ingenuity, and, for that, I think they'd be better served using more contemporary technology.

A couple of ships that could have been mid or light-cruisers during the Galaxy Era:

The Orion Class “pocket galaxy” by ashleytinger.
It needs sharper edges to match the sculpted beauty of the Galaxy, but it's a cute ship.
With her big sister.
Fore and Aft — you can really see a Sternbach Ambassador lineage in the pylons.

The Victory Class by Jetfreak-7.
It has Galaxy coloring but looks like a Sternbach Ambassador contemporary to me. I think it's the thickness of the pylon assembly. I like that it would be contemporary without being kitbash.
En flambé.
For and Aft — it looks like a fast little ship.

Another example of how the Enterprise-B is a double saucer variant.

I really feel like a couple of new (custom) nacelles and some smoothing of its hard edges and the Akira would fit nicely into the Galaxy Era.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I really feel like a couple of new (custom) nacelles and some smoothing of its hard edges and the Akira would fit nicely into the Galaxy Era.

I could see the Akira-class as an approximate peer of the Galaxy-class, however I doubt that it would be a light cruiser, it's a least as heavly armed as the Galaxy-class and the hull form it's likely superior in combat.

The semi-canon Challenger, Cheyenne and Niagara- class starships are the light to medium cruisers of the era. The Ambassador-class is the only specific heavy (though I'd put the Akira here as well). Excelsiors probably depend on the batch they belong to - old four digit reg's would likely be light cruisers at best, whereas the newer builds (especially the Lakota post-PL) are likely competitive against heavy cruisers at least in a short fight.

 

[Tomalak]

Is the Akira really as heavily armed as the Galaxy class? It has fewer phaser banks, and although it's said to have fifteen torpedo laucnhers, we don't know if they're the same calibre as the Galaxy class. The Enterprise-D could shoot a bunch of torpedoes in one volley.

 

[Timo]

The Akira has many odd features, including a large number of tubes (although fifteen is probably not true - the laterally firing hull tubes apparently won't be installed until next Tuesday) but also what looks like rotating carousels in the pod, bringing tube after tube to bear through the openings in that pod.

A superior way of pumping out standard torps? An inferior way? A way to deliver something different from standard torps? We see a volley of four being fired in ST:FC, which isn't particularly impressive. But it packs a punch at the target, which might be impressive. Or then not.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Arpy]

I'm a little dubious of the numbers of weapons we've seen on ships since the Galaxy Class in the 80's. We only ever saw two phasers on the Starship Class TOS Enterprise and 1-2 torpedo launchers. The immense Galaxy Class had 12 Type-X phasers and 2 torpedo launchers, with a 3rd apparent only on orthos. It could fire "full spreads" of torpedoes, 5 at a time from each tube (10-15 max out of 250 total), but that's it.

Weapons also seemed more powerful early on, where a few shots were enough to do serious damage and no shields meant endgame. Which may be more realistic if we think of these weapons as terribly powerful (stronger than our nukes, or when can we begin the conquest of the pansies of the future?), instead of meaningless light globs zip-zapping out at a fast rate but to no necessary effect.

I think I'd read somewhere that the Galaxy was designed so that the weapons/phasers could cover the entire range of fire surrounding a ship. That made sense and was better than what we saw anyway on TOS. It also kinda suggests that that's both sufficient and all you can ask for power/space-wise. If not, why wouldn't Klingon ships especially be little more than scores, or even hundreds, of disrupter and torpedo tubes around multiple power cores? And why wouldn't Federation ships then be the same in order to defend against?

When I read that the Akira has 15 torpedo tubes (firing possibly 75 torpedoes at a time) or that the Scimitar has 52 pulse disruptor cannons and 27 photon torpedo launchers, primary and secondary shields, and a highly-advanced cloaking device, on top of its thalaron super-weapon and fleet of scorpion fighters, I just think "another example of why Trek dwindled and flopped, having lost verisimilitude and the general appeal." In its eternal struggle with pulp and legitimacy, it broke for contemporary Captain Proton.

In my head-canon, those 12 Galaxy phasers are either of a higher/refitted Type (ample room in a Galaxy for larger assemblies under the surface) or by virtue of the ones on the saucer especially being so long that there's technically more phaser there than the number 12 suggests. That and/or the 15 launchers on the Akira/Scimitar are individual-fire ones instead of full spread-capable. If not, then regardless what the Galaxy was launched with and the model continues to look like, as enemy armament numbers went up, so did the Galaxy's. It'd be unrealistic for it to be otherwise, especially if it's still carrying families. The only way that makes sense is if it can more than adequately defend them.

 

[Unicron]

Is the Akira really as heavily armed as the Galaxy class? It has fewer phaser banks, and although it's said to have fifteen torpedo laucnhers, we don't know if they're the same calibre as the Galaxy class. The Enterprise-D could shoot a bunch of torpedoes in one volley.

The first volume of Designing Starships suggests the Akira has 17 launchers, with 12 on the rollbar (apparently in a 6 forward, 3 port aft, 3 starboard aft configuration), one firing forward beneath the deflector, and the other four being in a somewhat unusual lateral configuration on the saucer (two firing on each side). The forward view of the Akira from John Eaves' original concept sketches for the film shows 7 forward tubes on the rollbar, which would throw the count up by one if we assume that's correct (4 on top, 3 on bottom plus the rear launchers). It's an interesting question as to whether that would mean similar weaponry to a design like the Galaxy, as the FASA RPG had a range of different phaser and torpedo models available regardless of the number of launchers. Not all models had the same capabilities and were sometimes suited for a specific class or role.

I think I'd read somewhere that the Galaxy was designed so that the weapons/phasers could cover the entire range of fire surrounding a ship. That made sense and was better than what we saw anyway on TOS. It also kinda suggests that that's both sufficient and all you can ask for power/space-wise. If not, why wouldn't Klingon ships especially be little more than scores, or even hundreds, of disrupter and torpedo tubes around multiple power cores? And why wouldn't Federation ships then be the same in order to defend against?

The TNG Technical Manual certainly suggests this, and my understanding is that this was one of the main advantages to the collimator rings on the Galaxy and similar designs. Instead of having point defense phasers with somewhat limited arcs of fire as seen on the TOS and TMP era ships, you could direct phaser beams to any points along the ring and cover a very large area. A similar principle is suggested in the DS9 Tech Manual in regards to the anti-Dominion weapon upgrades. If the Eaglemoss renders of ships like the Norway are more or less accurate, some of them still seem to have point defense phasers instead of rings (possibly due to how small a hull like the Norway's is) which could be based on their mission profile.

Amusingly, the FASA version of the Galaxy is rather hilariously packed with weapons, having around 20 torpedo tubes and a similar number of phasers. One could argue that this would be a possible configuration without the civilian amenities, or alternatively the arsenal carried on the alternate D in "Yesterday's Enterprise."

 

[Timo]

In contrast with what was seen in TOS, what was heard in TOS was pretty close to the other shows. Kirk's ship is bristling with phasers: forward/aft, midships, port/starboard, main. The very need for the terminology suggests a complex arsenal. Torpedoes are numbered up to six at least, for forward firing; the ship might well have more, and an apparent sister ship is later seen firing aft torps even though such were not specifically mentioned in TOS dialogue.

But the number of phaser emitters has never been a metric of firepower. Just as in TOS, only one weapon fires at a time, suggesting there would be no advantage to firing several simultaneously. Except in certain exotic engagements and multitarget situations, and even there we see using a single emitter is another option.

Are there many torpedo tubes on an Akira for the same reason there are many phaser emitters on a starship - that is, coverage geometry, and possibly redundancy/robustness? Or for firepower? If the latter, why don't the under-the-bow tubes fire in sync with the pod ones in ST:FC?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Arpy]

In contrast with what was seen in TOS, what was heard in TOS was pretty close to the other shows. Kirk's ship is bristling with phasers: forward/aft, midships, port/starboard, main. The very need for the terminology suggests a complex arsenal. Torpedoes are numbered up to six at least, for forward firing; the ship might well have more, and an apparent sister ship is later seen firing aft torps even though such were not specifically mentioned in TOS dialogue.

I’d be interested in seeing an article on this. And where the weapons were on the physical model at the time of creation, or in the writers room after at different points in the series. Dialogue can be misleading. Torpedo *tubes one through six doesn’t mesh with what we saw after. The Refit only had 2, again in keeping with what we saw/might have seen in TOS. Torpedoes one through six in each volley maybe. (Unless they were on the 47th deck we saw in STV, or that TARDIS-like chasm on the bottom deck we saw in NEM.) Fore and aft phasers could work if you’re counting that aft dome over the shuttlebay as another phaser emitter as per ENT, but port/starboard phasers could refer to the direction of fire for the near-360 degree domes. Dunno. But dialogue by itself can be problematic in TOS as they’re still sorting things out — lithium crystals, laser weapons, UESPA, Space Central, women captains, etc.

But the number of phaser emitters has never been a metric of firepower. Just as in TOS, only one weapon fires at a time, suggesting there would be no advantage to firing several simultaneously. Except in certain exotic engagements and multitarget situations, and even there we see using a single emitter is another option.

Yeah, let’s hope.

Are there many torpedo tubes on an Akira for the same reason there are many phaser emitters on a starship - that is, coverage geometry, and possibly redundancy/robustness? Or for firepower? If the latter, why don't the under-the-bow tubes fire in sync with the pod ones in ST:FC?

If they’ve got that many, they should be firing nearly non-stop. By the time you get to tube 15, tube 1 is loaded and ready. That is, if they’re not all ready within seconds, given that this is distant future tech we’re talking about. Also, torpedoes are warp-capable, making coverage geometry not as big an issue as it might be, and they aren’t limited by ship’s power sources like phasers, so onward FTL soldiers.

 

[Timo]

I’d be interested in seeing an article on this. And where the weapons were on the physical model at the time of creation, or in the writers room after at different points in the series.

...Probably nowhere in particular. That is, there was no great requirement to coordinate things, as nothing said or shown was in contradiction anyway, not with the lean VFX that really didn't have enough presence to do any contradicting.

Dialogue can be misleading.

And so can visuals, but if we treat Trek as pseudoreality, then we must trust our eyes but can argue the characters pseudorealistically sometimes speak in error.

Torpedo *tubes one through six doesn’t mesh with what we saw after. The Refit only had 2, again in keeping with what we saw/might have seen in TOS.

Why would that be a problem? TOS now also has a before. In ENT, the hero ship had two tubes where Kirk has his. In TOS, the ship is supposed to be more powerful, so six tubes there sounds fine indeed. But in the TOS movies, the tubes go away. They get replaced with new tech somewhere else, which is a fine time to decide that quality overrides quantity. A bit like the real, parallel sixties-to-seventies transition in naval warfare where large numbers of gunbarrels or missile launch rails ceased to be relevant as capacity of individual weapons increase.

Torpedoes one through six in each volley maybe.

No, those are tubes, as per "The Changeling", where Kirk first orders torps prepared, then picks #2 to be fired. If there only were one tube, his only possible "choice" would be #1 torp in that tube.

Fore and aft phasers could work if you’re counting that aft dome over the shuttlebay as another phaser emitter as per ENT, but port/starboard phasers could refer to the direction of fire for the near-360 degree domes.

Listing them separately would then make no sense. And the ENT version of the TOS ship shows phaser turrets flanking the dome - retractable ones, similar to those of the ENT hero ship herself. This solves all our problems: unnoticeable retractable phasers all around these "fire control sensor" domes, unnoticeable torpedo tubes (now with cover hatches) right where Archer had them (hatchless for his spatial torps, but hatches did cover his new photon torpedo tubes, at least the aft one, as seen in action).

As long as we don't start fruitlessly arguing that multiple weapons firing simultaneously is better than just one firing (because we can see it isn't, as per the consistent choices by our knowledgeable heroes), there's no real reason to think Kirk's ship didn't have at least six forward torpedo tubes and at least four distinct groupings of phasers (with the forward one quite possibly featuring four banks, as in "Paradise Syndrome", and the others perhaps fewer).

Dunno. But dialogue by itself can be problematic in TOS as they’re still sorting things out — lithium crystals, laser weapons, UESPA, Space Central, women captains, etc.

I think ENT solved most of those problems elegantly enough. And DSC continues the good work, in its own fashion.

Timo Saloniemi