Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard

[Ostermond]

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

112 of the toughest, fastest, most powerful sticks Starfleet ever put into service...seems like overkill, and not like Rooseveltian doctrine. Frankly, overkill on both sides, from the Romulans AND the Federation.

The whole point of the attack on Mars was that it crippled the Federation's shipbuilding capacity, which was already being drained by building evacuation ships for the Romulans. If the Federation could churn out that many starships in a few more years (and remember, the fact that there were over a hundred nearby and not tied up with another mission too important to abandon or laid up in port or otherwise unable to haul ass for a propaganda appearance implies that, across the Federation, there were many times more of them), with all the bells and whistles, without using robotic labor, there's no problem. Constructing people-movers wouldn't have been an imposition on the Federation, and losing the shipyards wouldn't have even been a fig-leaf excuse for putting a stop to it.

And there’s the other part of it. UPFY was the BIG one. If Starfleet would be able to make 112+ Sovereign-sized starships even AFTER their overall shipbuilding capacity got screwed, why even bother crippling Starfleet’s shipbuilding capacity in the first place?

 

[fireproof78]

112 of the toughest, fastest, most powerful sticks Starfleet ever put into service...seems like overkill. Frankly, overkill on both sides, from the Romulans AND the Federation.

And it probably was. And?

The whole point of the attack on Mars was that it crippled the Federation's shipbuilding capacity, which was already being drained by building evacuation ships for the Romulans. If the Federation could churn out that many starships in a few more years (and remember, the fact that there were over a hundred nearby and not tied up with another mission too important to abandon or laid up in port or otherwise unable to haul ass for a propaganda appearance implies that, across the Federation, there were many times more of them), with all the bells and whistles, without using robotic labor, there's no problem. Constructing people-movers wouldn't have been an imposition on the Federation, and losing the shipyards wouldn't have even been a fig-leaf excuse for putting a stop to it.

And so they never recovered? Never rebuilt? Picard doesn't happen right after the attack on Utopia Planitia so what happens in that immediate aftermath doesn't indicate what they were capable of later on.

 

[Ostermond]

And it probably was. And?

And so they never recovered? Never rebuilt? Picard doesn't happen right after the attack on Utopia Planitia so what happens in that immediate aftermath doesn't indicate what they were capable of later on.

Aren’t the fires on Mars supposedly still burning by 2399?

 

[cooleddie74]

They could have been built at San Francisco Shipyards or at Antares Shipyards.

 

[Ostermond]

They could have been built at San Francisco Shipyards or at Antares Shipyards.

God knows what the capacities of those yards are supposed to be, though.

 

[fireproof78]

Aren’t the fires on Mars supposedly still burning by 2399?

They could have been built at San Francisco Shipyards or at Antares Shipyards.

God knows what the capacities of those yards are supposed to be, though.

Exactly. We don't know how Starfleet reallocated resources after the attack on Utopia Planitia. It's a rather limited assumption that Starfleet flung up its hands and decided that rebuilding ships at previous paces was the reasonable approach in the circumstances, given the fact that the Romulan Star Empire suffered a cataclysmic event resulting in even greater instability.

I get that we don't have enough information to know for certain. To my mind yes 112 ships is overkill but that's what Starfleet learned in the past several decades. That there are threats and dangers that are not going to wait for Starfleet to gather their forces. They will just smash their way through unless Starfleet is able to project power. Do I think 112 ships like the Inquiry is routine production? No. Do I think it would have been fast tracked based upon emergent need? Yes.

 

[Ostermond]

Exactly. We don't know how Starfleet reallocated resources after the attack on Utopia Planitia. It's a rather limited assumption that Starfleet flung up its hands and decided that rebuilding ships at previous paces was the reasonable approach in the circumstances, given the fact that the Romulan Star Empire suffered a cataclysmic event resulting in even greater instability.

I get that we don't have enough information to know for certain. To my mind yes 112 ships is overkill but that's what Starfleet learned in the past several decades. That there are threats and dangers that are not going to wait for Starfleet to gather their forces. They will just smash their way through unless Starfleet is able to project power. Do I think 112 ships like the Inquiry is routine production? No. Do I think it would have been fast tracked based upon emergent need? Yes.

Nobody's saying they flung their hands up in the air. What's being said is it's probably statistically impossible for ships of that size to be produced at such numbers in that short a time without displacing basically the entire remaining large drydock capacity, or better served building smaller powerful ships. Or more of an already-proven design that doesn't need to go through so much testing before the first ship is commissioned.

 

[nic3636]

Oh man, if only the writers knew what a mess they made. Pretty sure the only reason they had that many ships was to have a cool scene where the TV screen is filled with ships warping in and out.

I agree though, building 112+ super advanced ships in that short of a time frame doesn't really make sense based on what we know. It's enough of a stretch if they are Voyager sized, it makes no sense at all if they are almost Galaxy sized.

 

[Ostermond]

Oh man, if only the writers knew what a mess they made. Pretty sure the only reason they had that many ships was to have a cool scene where the TV screen is filled with ships warping in and out.

I agree though, building 112+ super advanced ships in that short of a time frame doesn't really make sense based on what we know. It's enough of a stretch if they are Voyager sized, it makes no sense at all if they are almost Galaxy sized.

It makes for poor drama and a logistical nightmare!

 

[fireproof78]

Nobody's saying they flung their hands up in the air. What's being said is it's probably statistically impossible for ships of that size to be produced at such numbers in that short a time without displacing basically the entire remaining large drydock capacity, or better served building smaller powerful ships. Or more of an already-proven design that doesn't need to go through so much testing before the first ship is commissioned.

I find it improbable but not impossible. I would hope that Starfleet would learn a thing or two from all the large scale conflicts and the ability to refine their ship building process. I think expecting the process to be the same as when the Galaxy class is rather unrealistic, to my mind.

Oh man, if only the writers knew what a mess they made.

What mess? It's typical fan discussion of what is put on screen. Some things work for some, and others not so much.

 

[nic3636]

What mess? It's typical fan discussion of what is put on screen. Some things work for some, and others not so much.

Oh no, this is a MESS!! But in all seriousness, I've said it many times, I wish NuTrek would pay a little more attention to detail on stuff like this. They aren't going to catch every little thing, but I consistently get the sense they just aren't thinking about the details at all (though Picard seems to have put more effort into this than Discovery).

 

[fireproof78]

Oh no, this is a MESS!! But in all seriousness, I've said it many times, I wish NuTrek would pay a little more attention to detail on stuff like this. They aren't going to catch every little thing, but I consistently get the sense they just aren't thinking about the details at all (though Picard seems to have put more effort into this than Discovery).

I feel like the details are the same as past Trek but the audience is more hyperfocused on these details and able to pull them apart on a microscopic level than before due to streaming, home media, and the Internet.

Does 112 ships strain my suspension of disbelief? A little bit. But, it's the same as with a lot of other Trek too for me so it gets factored in to that part of my thinking. And if I can come up with in universe rationales then it works for me. I don't need the writers to spell out the details.

Mileage will vary.

 

[nic3636]

I feel like the details are the same as past Trek but the audience is more hyperfocused on these details and able to pull them apart on a microscopic level than before due to streaming, home media, and the Internet.
Mileage will vary.

The other side to that though is the writers have those same modern tools to make sure their stories are air tight

I disagree on the details being the same as past Trek. That might be true for TOS but I've been re-watching TNG and DS9 and those series in particular seemed to make a concerted effort to pay attention to the details (it wasn't until VOY when they started playing fast and loose). Yes, there were still inconsistencies and those shows got picked apart at the time but I remember having the TNG technical manual, reading it through, and having all the detail in the manual (for the most part) consistent with what was in the show. It could partly be a function of the longer seasons and having extra time to flesh some of that stuff out, but I also think it was because the writers and staff made more of an effort on these types of things than they do now.

Just to add, I think it's better in Picard (for example, Chabon writing a huge essay on the backstory of Freecloud is a great example of attention to detail even if that wasn't shown on screen).

 

[Timo]

Usually our rationalization can only be reactive: the writers or the VFX folks throw WTF stuff at us, and we cope. Could we be a bit predictive here?

That is, yes, we need to rationalize away the ability to deploy 112+ ships of identical design and arguable size. But is this one-off? Are we going to get more reasonable fleets in the future, when the CGI assets that never made it into S1 become available? With four or so starship designs, the show could go on for seven seasons the exact same way TNG did, showing the exact same sort of Starfleet in action.

Mixed fleets of four designs can be a hundred strong or five hundred strong for DS9 style action and still remain more or less true to the TNG way of things; minimal squinting is required. With those assets available, would TPTB ever resort to single-type fleets again? Even in those rare instances where a fleet does show up, which probably isn't all that often.

I gather we could be predictive here by sticking to being reactive: let's decide a fleet like this will never happen again. Rationalizing it away thus need not tie into Federation production or procurement policies at all: it's all tactical, perhaps even psychological.

...We still have our work cut out for us if we want to argue Riker had several options and chose to deploy 112+ modern equivalents of the Galaxy.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[nic3636]

I still like the idea that it was Riker by himself in a shuttlecraft and all the ships were fake holo projections.

 

[fireproof78]

The other side to that though is the writers have those same modern tools to make sure their stories are air tight

I disagree on the details being the same as past Trek. That might be true for TOS but I've been re-watching TNG and DS9 and those series in particular seemed to make a concerted effort to pay attention to the details (it wasn't until VOY when they started playing fast and loose). Yes, there were still inconsistencies and those shows got picked apart at the time but I remember having the TNG technical manual, reading it through, and having all the detail in the manual (for the most part) consistent with what was in the show. It could partly be a function of the longer seasons and having extra time to flesh some of that stuff out, but I also think it was because the writers and staff made more of an effort on these types of things than they do now.

But have the writers learned to use those tools? And why would they? We act like writers should be reading these forums to hone their craft and nitpick it to the same degree us fans do. But that's not their point of view necessarily. And creating an air tight story sounds good in theory-I would love to see it done under the time constraints present for production schedules. I'm not saying it can't be done but that the emphasis by the writers may be different.

Fair enough on TNG. I didn't watch it and regarded it quite poorly in terms of characters nor did I find the TNG technical manual that enjoyable. But, I also grew up with Josephs' Technical Manual and that was never used on screen so those details matter less to me from an episode by episode point of view. It's fun outside of watching it, but watching the show I'm not taken out of it when 112 ships come out of warp or stuff like that. Especially after watching the scale up from the Dominion War.

 

[nic3636]

But have the writers learned to use those tools? And why would they? We act like writers should be reading these forums to hone their craft and nitpick it to the same degree us fans do. But that's not their point of view necessarily. And creating an air tight story sounds good in theory-I would love to see it done under the time constraints present for production schedules. I'm not saying it can't be done but that the emphasis by the writers may be different.

The Expanse is probably the most comparable example but Westworld and Game of Thrones (except towards the end) are other examples of world building shows that put an incredible amount of effort into the details and always tried to stay consistent with the "rules" of the fictional universe. Building a complex, detailed world like that is a great way to pull people into the story, and conversely a lack of attention to the details can kick you right out of it. That doesn't seem be the case for you but for a lot of people it is.

 

[fireproof78]

The Expanse is probably the most comparable example but Westworld and Game of Thrones (except towards the end) are other examples of world building shows that put an incredible amount of effort into the details and always tried to stay consistent with the "rules" of the fictional universe. Building a complex, detailed world like that is a great way to pull people into the story, and conversely a lack of attention to the details can kick you right out of it. That doesn't seem be the case for you but for a lot of people it is.

Perhaps that is the problem. Star Trek isn't GoT or the Expanse and I sure don't want it to be. I love complex and detailed world building and am committed to that in my own writings. But that isn't Star Trek for me.

 

[Ostermond]

Perhaps that is the problem. Star Trek isn't GoT or the Expanse and I sure don't want it to be. I love complex and detailed world building and am committed to that in my own writings. But that isn't Star Trek for me.

But it's what Star Trek has offered a lot of in the past several decades.

 

[fireproof78]

But it's what Star Trek has offered a lot of in the past several decades.

And its also offered a lot of nonsense too. I take the good with the baboon.

As I stated 112 ships stretches my suspension but not by a lot given the sheer amount of need the Federation would have after a devastating war.