Headless Galaxy Classes?

[USSHermes]

A vision of a 'headless' Galaxy flying around the alpha quadrant just popped into my head - and why not - it has a secondary bridge, photon torpedoes and Warp engines after all...

I am not sure how many Galaxy Class ships were created officially, but in some of the DS9 episodes there seemed to be dozens of them; "galaxy wing one, galaxy wing two"

So given the large number, is it possible that there are a few Galaxy-class ships around without their saucer sections? Perhaps waiting for replacement saucers?

 

[SchwEnt]

running around like headless chickens...

 

[Christopher]

It always bugged me that the Galaxy-Class ships in the Dominion War battle fleets had saucers at all. The whole idea of the design was that in combat, the secondary hull would leave the saucer behind, both to protect the large civilian complement and to make the remaining vessel lighter, more maneuverable, and able to devote much more of its power to weapons and defense. I understand the real-life reasons why this was done, namely that the only miniature that could separate was too large and cumbersome; and I imagine wanting the ships to have a recognizable profile was a consideration as well. But in-universe, it seems inconsistent.

It seems to me that it certainly would've been feasible to build Galaxy-class battle sections without any saucers at all -- maybe a slightly modified version with no clamps in the "cobra head" section, making room for different features there. (The "Dwarf Galaxy" Class?) That could've been interesting to see as a digital model in later DS9. Indeed, I'm rather surprised that, to the best of my knowledge, it's never been explored as a possibility by fan designers.

 

[sojourner]

It's ugly.

 

[USSHermes]

Exactly what I was thinking Christoper. For a few extra sensors and extra phaser strips it might not be worth going into battle with it on.

Perhaps a tale set aboard such a ship might be in order? The USS Washington or USS Crane perhaps as a reference to Sleepy Hollow?

"They kept promising us a new saucer section, but the fleet keeps crying out for new Intrepid and Sovereign class vessels and the yards keep putting our requests on the back burner. So I spend my days poring over battle reports ghoulishly hoping that another Galaxy class will be severely damaged with the right kind of damage."

 

[USS Triumphant]

It always bugged me that the Galaxy-Class ships in the Dominion War battle fleets had saucers at all. The whole idea of the design was that in combat, the secondary hull would leave the saucer behind, both to protect the large civilian complement and to make the remaining vessel lighter, more maneuverable, and able to devote much more of its power to weapons and defense.

Maybe since the warp-field geometry for the ship with the saucer was already thoroughly tested and optimized, it was logical to use the same frame and shape but clear out a lot of the civilian accomodations to make room for uprated phaser equipment, additional torpedo tubes, etc, for the combat version of the Galaxy-class.

The BEST argument I can think of for this (in universe - IRL I don't know that I buy it, either ) is that the Enterprise-D in "Yesterday's Enterprise" still has the saucer. So do almost all of the Enterprise-Ds in "Parallels" - some of which I would think would be from universes where Starfleet is at war with someone.

 

[Data Holmes]

I always thought that they should have replaced the big saucer with a smaller, more heavily armed, saucer... But that's just me.

 

[Wingsley]

All of this misses another point from "Yesterday's Enterprise": Yar bragged that the E-D had a capacity for hauling 6,500 troops. So maybe a Galaxy-class saucer can be refit during combat missions to carry troops and/or extra equipment/weapons.

So, if you're going off to D-Day, what better way to deliver the troops than a Galaxy?

Problem solved.

 

[trevanian]

It's ugly.

I think it is ugly and misshapen WITH the dish. W/O it, the thing ain't no beaut, but at least it seems better proportioned. Put some Eaves -E type plating on it and that would embellish the snakehead/cobra look, give you a lean mean galaxy machine instead of the topheavy hotel in space.

 

[Unicron]

The FASA RPG stats for the Galaxy did have a lot more weapons than what's described canonically, and perhaps might be more like what the YE version might carry.

 

[Christopher]

Maybe since the warp-field geometry for the ship with the saucer was already thoroughly tested and optimized, it was logical to use the same frame and shape but clear out a lot of the civilian accomodations to make room for uprated phaser equipment, additional torpedo tubes, etc, for the combat version of the Galaxy-class.

The BEST argument I can think of for this (in universe - IRL I don't know that I buy it, either ) is that the Enterprise-D in "Yesterday's Enterprise" still has the saucer. So do almost all of the Enterprise-Ds in "Parallels" - some of which I would think would be from universes where Starfleet is at war with someone.

But those are rationalizations after the fact. They don't change the fact that the original creators of the show and designers of the ship intended a very clear and specific function for the separation ability and the battle section, but that idea was subsequently abandoned completely due more to logistical concerns and convenience than anything else. There was a promising idea at the beginning of the series that was abandoned only because the miniature was cumbersome to shoot in separated form, and I think that's a missed opportunity. Just one of many ideas that the original TNG creators had in mind and their successors abandoned.

Besides, no matter what rationalizations one can think of for the inconsistency, within the show itself the abandonment of saucer separation was never explained, so that makes it a continuity error.

 

[USS Triumphant]

But those are rationalizations after the fact.

Yes. I'm still looking for someone - anyone - to send me a "No Prize".

 

[T'Girl]

It seems to me that it certainly would've been feasible to build Galaxy-class battle sections without any saucers at all -- maybe a slightly modified version with no clamps in the "cobra head" section, making room for different features there. (The "Dwarf Galaxy" Class?) That could've been interesting to see as a digital model in later DS9. Indeed, I'm rather surprised that, to the best of my knowledge, it's never been explored as a possibility by fan designers.

Exactly what I was thinking Christoper. For a few extra sensors and extra phaser strips it might not be worth going into battle with it on.

Or leave the docking clamps, attach a small "battle pod" on top of the neck. Let you keep only the good things about the saucer, sensors phasers, aux. power, additional computer core.

 

[AnyStar]

Exactly what I was thinking Christoper. For a few extra sensors and extra phaser strips it might not be worth going into battle with it on.

Perhaps a tale set aboard such a ship might be in order? The USS Washington or USS Crane perhaps as a reference to Sleepy Hollow?

"They kept promising us a new saucer section, but the fleet keeps crying out for new Intrepid and Sovereign class vessels and the yards keep putting our requests on the back burner. So I spend my days poring over battle reports ghoulishly hoping that another Galaxy class will be severely damaged with the right kind of damage."

i'm sure the 20yr timeline for construction (mind you thats for the entire craft, both-halves) has something to do with those damn delays on delivery of our new saucer, but for Christs sake: havnt those chaps over on the Enterprise mastered time travel by now? someone get them to go bring us our hull back!!!!!

 

[Timo]

But those are rationalizations after the fact. They don't change the fact that the original creators of the show and designers of the ship intended a very clear and specific function for the separation ability

So the original makers dropped the ball. So what? Patch-ups are legit; many an early error has been corrected by more competent or more interesting writers and visualizers later on.

In-universe, this was probably yet another grand experiment that failed miserably. The ship was designed to work both separated and joined - and the compromises made for achieving this ended up condemning the ship to joined operations, as they favored this mode in combat.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

But those are rationalizations after the fact.

Yes. I'm still looking for someone - anyone - to send me a "No Prize".

Hey, I got mine from Marvel 20 years ago, and I ain't lettin' it go!

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

The FASA RPG stats for the Galaxy did have a lot more weapons than what's described canonically, and perhaps might be more like what the YE version might carry.

I remember that. Mondo powerful.

Then the Year 1 update came out and basically downgraded the stats for it.

 

[MEATLOAFr]

A good reason to keep the saucer is so that it could be used to rescue survivors and haul troops/marines to planets [take over ships]

The ships most likely weren’t even fully outfitted as well, as their being a war on, and most of the internal volume most likely was hollow, or was just empty decks.

 

[Forbin]

The ships most likely weren’t even fully outfitted as well, as their being a war on, and most of the internal volume most likely was hollow, or was just empty decks.

That gives me a thought - all that saucer surface area makes a great target, and with the saucer empty, it could serve as sort of a "lure" for enemy fire. In other words, leave the saucer on to get the enemy to shoot at the big empty parts of the ship so they don't hit the important bits.

 

[Deks]

Waste of time and resources.
The reasonable hypothesis is that the Galaxies seen during the Dominion War were fully equipped and constructed.
I fail to see the point in sending such a large ship into combat incomplete to begin with.
Better to leave the saucer empty in that case and just send the stardrive into battle (which would be easier/faster to construct anyway).

The Galaxies being incomplete during the Dominion War is a supposition based on nothing canonical to begin with.
It's idiotic as well.