Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Another thought, that might have been mentioned. Would Starfleet take two surviving hulks of ships and combine them into a third ship with a new registry? The secondary hull of one Connie mated to the primary hull of another Connie, for example.
Can they take a saucer section from one ship and combine it with the stardrive section of another? Absolutely.
What do they name it and what registry do they give it? Beats me. I would think that the easiest solution would be to simply rename and re-reg the whole thing. Geordi just kept the Ent-D name instead of the Syracuse for obvious reasons, but I would think that an actual active-duty ship's identification would need to be changed.
Another thought, that might have been mentioned. Would Starfleet take two surviving hulks of ships and combine them into a third ship with a new registry? The secondary hull of one Connie mated to the primary hull of another Connie, for example.
Can they take a saucer section from one ship and combine it with the stardrive section of another? Absolutely.
What do they name it and what registry do they give it? Beats me. I would think that the easiest solution would be to simply rename and re-reg the whole thing. Geordi just kept the Ent-D name instead of the Syracuse for obvious reasons, but I would think that an actual active-duty ship's identification would need to be changed.
They would pick one. Likely whichever one needed less work. Or they'd keep the saucer registry. They might give it a new name, but during the conversion it would be listed under one of the old names.
They would pick one. Likely whichever one needed less work. Or they'd keep the saucer registry. They might give it a new name, but during the conversion it would be listed under one of the old names.
You would now have a naming conflict. What is the logic of preference of choosing the saucer over the stardrive, or vice versa? It would make more sense to just rename the entire ship.
You would now have a naming conflict. What is the logic of preference of choosing the saucer over the stardrive, or vice versa? It would make more sense to just rename the entire ship.
The saucer is where the computer core is. That is the heart of the ship and the name. The other is just the engines, which in the case of the Constitution Class refits, was torn out anyway. Now, if they were using the engines AND the computer core, that might change what name they would keep. But it is really all just bureaucratic paperwork - what ship they want to keep on the books.
Well, Starfleet would have a rule about what to do. IMO, the least work would be decommissioning the old ships, because SF does that as a matter of course, and then new ship with new registry, because SF is already doing that, too.
The saucer is where the computer core is. That is the heart of the ship and the name. The other is just the engines, which in the case of the Constitution Class refits, was torn out anyway. Now, if they were using the engines AND the computer core, that might change what name they would keep. But it is really all just bureaucratic paperwork - what ship they want to keep on the books.
Well, if the Stardrive section didn't have its own computer core and associated systems, how exactly would it be able to run independently of the saucer (which is something its very much capable of doing)?
You would now have a naming conflict. What is the logic of preference of choosing the saucer over the stardrive, or vice versa? It would make more sense to just rename the entire ship.
Its up to Starfleet on how they choose to name the re-assembled vessel. My guess is that there is no naming conflict (since they would just pick one over the other based on the vessels crew performance and ship's overall service record - meaning, the name that didn't make the cut would be proclaimed as 'lost' while the section is reprogrammed to the surviving section name that did make the cut - and in turn, SF would likely honour the 'gone' registry by creating a new ship with a suffix letter).
I would imagine that in most instances the destroyed section is just built a new for the surviving section... so had the ENT-D saucer been originally salvaged immediately at the end of Generations with those rescue ships (which could have tractored it from the planet while taking the crew with them) with the end goal of repairing it, Starfleet would probably give it a spare stardrive section which may have been sitting in one of the spacedocks unused (or it wasn't fully completed), or they'd just make a new one to return the ship to active service and it would still be the ENT-D.
I would say in the case of what actually happened, since Geordi put most of the work into the D saucer in the last 40 odd years with the purpose to restore the whole ship as a surprise, the Syracuse registry was left on the hull because he just didn't get around to changing it by that time (much like some of the external damage to the saucer was still visible from its crash to Veridian III and him not having the time to fully work on the weapons systems to incorporate automated targeting and firing), but computer wise, the stardrive was likely reprogrammed to be the now fully assembled ENT-D because that's what Geordi wanted.
The Syracuse name probably continued on (and was honoured by SF) as a new vessel (either same or new class of ship) with the A suffix (Syracuse-A).
Well, Starfleet would have a rule about what to do. IMO, the least work would be decommissioning the old ships, because SF does that as a matter of course, and then new ship with new registry, because SF is already doing that, too.
Yes, but if it was a choice between repairing mostly undamaged Saucer and just building a new stardrive section vs creating a whole new ship, my guess would be its actually quicker and easier to repair an existing saucer with less time and resources spent on making the stardrive section compared to making a brand new ship which would almost certainly require more resources (they have replicators and transporters, so they can literally beam out too damaged sections, decompose them into base elements in the matter stream, then inject a bit more matter to make the fully repaired and brand new section - old becomes new, less resources used) - though in fairness, I guess that because UFP is a post-scarcity organisation, they could technically just replace the thing with a brand new ship (just because they can)... but that kinda goes against their core ethos of sustainbility and overall waste. Junkyards shouldn't really exist in Trek since they make little sense. SF and UFP would be recycling EVERYTHING (which was definitely mentioned several times in older Trek) - but the writers obviously didn't go in this direction for newer series.
The ENT-D saucer was largely intact after all... and the Galaxy class is a pretty versatile and worthy design to keep in active service because it was designed with modularity and adaptability in mind.
We know why it was really not done this way: because they thought that the ENT-D wouldn't look too good on the 'big screen' (even though that's not the case as the ship looked perfectly fine in Generations, and the writers just wanted a new design for the movies).
Mind you I have nothing against the E, its a fine ship, but I just think that the ENT-D could have easily continued (it also irks me that there are seemingly no other Galaxy class ships in the early 25th century).
I believe the computer core in the star drive section would be considered the backup. In the Galaxy class design it is half the size of the saucer computer core. In the Constitution Class it is debatable if the star drive section could function alone.
Another aspect is how the ships were put out of service. There could be some situations where you would want to disguise to the new crew how the old crew met their end and you'd want to either use a new name and registry or the one from the other salvaged sections.
In my day job, I deal with car license plates a lot. Different states have different rules. Cali assigns a plate to the vehicle and it stays with it even if you sell it. But other states (what I consider the norm) assign the plate to the person so if you sell it, it gets a new plate. I think of the Starfleet registries like license plates. A ship in commission has an active registry. When they decommission a ship the registry is no longer active. If the pull the ship into active duty again they might need to register it under a new name and number. Sometimes they might reuse the name. For 1701-A we have an existing ship (here is not the place to debate what that ship was) that was renamed and re-registered. We also have Defiant which was destroyed and then its sister ship was renamed and re-registered to be a new Defiant. Then we have 1701-D which lost its stardrive and went into temporary service (and then museum duty) with the stardrive from a different ship. And then there are several discrepancies that are not easy to account for unless this is a normal practice for Starfleet. If the registries are fixed to the hull, some things just don't make sense. If they are flexible and changeable, then most of the discrepancies can be explained away.
In my study of ships, name and registry just is not important. Sure, sometimes a name gets associated with a particular hull, but when ships change hands they usually change names. I was looking at the Fletcher Class destroyers and several were sold or leased to other governments and the used their own name and hull number. Cruise ships changed names frequently. The idea that a ship doesn't get renamed is not born out by historical data. So I think that this carries through to Starfleet and they aren't very dedicated to keeping the name and registry on any given hull. We've seen in some very specific incidents that Starfleet can be quick to change both name and registry. We've also seen a couple of times that a ship might have multiple registries.
Registries are seemingly fixed to the hull only paint-wise (or whatever equivalent of paint SF uses for space ships to mark their ships) and they can be changed.
As we saw, the USS Discovery was able to change its registry on the hull when it went to the Mirror universe to I.S.S. Discovery.
So, the hull markings are changeable... and internally, the computer would only need to be reprogrammed to correspond accurately to the new registry.
No canonical data it seems, but its likely up to SF's own discretion. What makes most sense (to me) in the case of the ENT-D would be that because the Syracuse saucer was presumably destroyed and SF (probably) made the A instead of making a new saucer, they just left the original Syracuse stardrive without fixing it which allowed Geordi to salvage it and use it for the ENT-D.
Apart from that, under more 'regular circumstances', I'd imagine crew and ship's service records are taken into account when deciding which surviving piece gets to continue as the same starship instead of being decomissioned and a new one with a suffix is placed in service.
But it seems to me that SF just dropped the Galaxy class ships in general. The Syracuse stardrive wasn't in such a bad shape it seems (it apparently needed some heavy fixing), but for some reason, SF just didn't want to repair it and give it another Galaxy saucer, much like in the case of the ENT-D they didn't rebuild the stardrive from scratch and put it back into active service).
Both the ENT-D saucer and Syracuse stardrive seemed to be in similar states of damage... more than salvageable and repairable, but SF just didn't bother (possibly because the Sovereign just eclipsed it and starships got 'sovereigneized' left and right?).
I think Geordi just had the clout to requisition the Syracuse’s star drive for his own personal project. In any other situation Starfleet would probably have just made a new saucer for the Syracuse, found another Galaxy class ship that lost its star drive but was still relatively intact (unlike the Enterprise-D saucer) or decommissioned it entirely, if the Syracuse’s star drive was beyond repair.
Mind you I have nothing against the E, its a fine ship, but I just think that the ENT-D could have easily continued (it also irks me that there are seemingly no other Galaxy class ships in the early 25th century).
Do we see any other designs from mid-century or earlier in the 2400s? I vaguely recall some 2370s and later designs appearing?
The Galaxy-class is a good design, but they're very resource intensive to produce and have limited advantages over medium-large designs like the Nebula and Sovereign now that the "families on exploration missions" policy appears to have fallen in popularity.
Do we see any other designs from mid-century or earlier in the 2400s? I vaguely recall some 2370s and later designs appearing?
The Galaxy-class is a good design, but they're very resource intensive to produce and have limited advantages over medium-large designs like the Nebula and Sovereign now that the "families on exploration missions" policy appears to have fallen in popularity.
While the Galaxy class does have a lot of internal volume and would require more resources to build, it still has an excellent ability to carry out long missions in deep space.
Plus, if you have a look at the Enterprise-F, that thing is larger than the Galaxy and Sovereign class ships. If size was a problem, why would they prioritize that design over the Galaxy class?
Also, we hadn't quite seen the Nebula class ships either... we saw some 'variants' that looked like them... but not actual Nebula class ships.
I think ST: Pic introduced a lot of inconsistencies what with SF having too many variation classes and just ended up bringing them in from ST: Online.
Had they avoided that, its possible we would have seen more 2360-ies designs among the 25th century ships which were simply upgraded internally to reflect a more modern technology incorporation.
Plus, I think we saw the Ross class starship, which is pretty much a similar enough variation of the Galaxy class in both shape and size (and internal volume),.
In the context of what happened to the Titan (by being refitted from Luna to Neo Constitution class), is it possible that SF just refitted the remaining Galaxy class ships into Ross class for some reason?
Perhaps Starfleet needed to completely rework it's older starships to integrate their acquired Borg technologies and other tech from the Delta Quadrant after USS Voyager returned home, and somehow this was more practical than building a new fleet post-Mars is burning.
But also this was a reaction to the copy-paste fleet seen at the end of Season 1 of Picard.
But it seems to me that SF just dropped the Galaxy class ships in general. The Syracuse stardrive wasn't in such a bad shape it seems (it apparently needed some heavy fixing), but for some reason, SF just didn't want to repair it and give it another Galaxy saucer, much like in the case of the ENT-D they didn't rebuild the stardrive from scratch and put it back into active service).
Both the ENT-D saucer and Syracuse stardrive seemed to be in similar states of damage... more than salvageable and repairable, but SF just didn't bother (possibly because the Sovereign just eclipsed it and starships got 'sovereigneized' left and right?).
The Galaxy Class got "Sovereign-ized" into the Ross class and was made "Canon" by the recent appearance in ST TV shows by being a background ship they put in.
I think StarFleet stop producing "Galaxy-class" StarShips and use the more updated Ross-class in it's place.
While the Galaxy class does have a lot of internal volume and would require more resources to build, it still has an excellent ability to carry out long missions in deep space.
Given that the Borg incursions + Dominion War, I think the Galaxy Class got upgraded into the Ross class. Even more internal saucer volume, more reactors (Dual Warp Cores).
I think the Galaxy Class would have stopped being produced and replaced by the Ross Class.
The technology would be newer, all systems would be newer, the Saucer has it's own mini warp core and ability to go FTL when detached since it has built in Warp Nacelles into the saucer edge.
When attached, it's dual Warp Cores allows it to punch above it's weight class.
Personally, I prefer the Galaxy Class StarDrive over the Ross-class StarDrive.
But I kind of like the Saucer on the Ross-class a bit more.
I think ST: Pic introduced a lot of inconsistencies what with SF having too many variation classes and just ended up bringing them in from ST: Online.
Had they avoided that, its possible we would have seen more 2360-ies designs among the 25th century ships which were simply upgraded internally to reflect a more modern technology incorporation.
I think it's more of a recent technological evolution thanks to:
1) The Dominion War being over
2) StarFleet gaining a treasure trove of knowledge / tech from Voyager
3) StarFleet retro-fitting all their StarShips with the latest in Delta Quadrant + Borg Tech
4) Retiring older TNG-era design for next generation designs (remember, StarFleet gets the latest / greatest tech).
The Galaxy Class got "Sovereign-ized" into the Ross class and was made "Canon" by the recent appearance in ST TV shows by being a background ship they put in.
I think StarFleet stop producing "Galaxy-class" StarShips and use the more updated Ross-class in it's place.
Given that the Borg incursions + Dominion War, I think the Galaxy Class got upgraded into the Ross class. Even more internal saucer volume, more reactors (Dual Warp Cores).
I think the Galaxy Class would have stopped being produced and replaced by the Ross Class.
The technology would be newer, all systems would be newer, the Saucer has it's own mini warp core and ability to go FTL when detached since it has built in Warp Nacelles into the saucer edge.
When attached, it's dual Warp Cores allows it to punch above it's weight class.
Personally, I prefer the Galaxy Class StarDrive over the Ross-class StarDrive.
But I kind of like the Saucer on the Ross-class a bit more.
I think it's more of a recent technological evolution thanks to:
1) The Dominion War being over
2) StarFleet gaining a treasure trove of knowledge / tech from Voyager
3) StarFleet retro-fitting all their StarShips with the latest in Delta Quadrant + Borg Tech
4) Retiring older TNG-era design for next generation designs (remember, StarFleet gets the latest / greatest tech).
Well, since the Ross class does indeed look like it could be a refit of the Galaxy class, then it basically supports my hypothesis that SF simply turned the Galaxy class into the Ross class (much like they converted the Titan from Luna to Neo Constitution).
The only problem with the Ross class is that deflector shape. I don't mind the yellow colour, but its shape could have been more in line with what the Galaxy had.
Well, since the Ross class does indeed look like it could be a refit of the Galaxy class, then it basically supports my hypothesis that SF simply turned the Galaxy class into the Ross class (much like they converted the Titan from Luna to Neo Constitution).
The only problem with the Ross class is that deflector shape. I don't mind the yellow colour, but its shape could have been more in line with what the Galaxy had.
Personally, I wanted the Galaxy class Ovular Deflector on front and the circular Deflector on back facing aft.
This way you can have "Dual Deflector Dishes".
