What class ship is this?
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
Yes, that is indeed a Galaxy Class ship 
Dude, move or reduce that or change to a link, or that image is going to get you an a** ******ing.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
A couple of other possibilities exist, though. A Nebula would look identical, and the perspective here readily allows us to think that this would be one of those half-scale ships kitbashed for "Best of Both Worlds" as well: New Orleans, Cheyenne or Challenger class, or even a Springfield.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
How could they install habitable spaces when the hull doesn't exist yet?
From the TNG Tech Manual, we glean that essentially the 24th century folks build the outer shells of their starships to be load-carrying structures, so that there are minimal reinforcing beams or bulkheads within. The interiors are then installed in a modular manner, so that it's easy to change the layout from a hundred crew quarters to fifty holodecks or ten cargo holds, at least in the construction phase. "Relativity" seems to agree with that approach, as does "Booby Trap" were we also see a half-finished (or perhaps torn-down) Galaxy.
Timo Saloniemi
From the TNG Tech Manual, we glean that essentially the 24th century folks build the outer shells of their starships to be load-carrying structures, so that there are minimal reinforcing beams or bulkheads within. The interiors are then installed in a modular manner, so that it's easy to change the layout from a hundred crew quarters to fifty holodecks or ten cargo holds, at least in the construction phase. "Relativity" seems to agree with that approach, as does "Booby Trap" were we also see a half-finished (or perhaps torn-down) Galaxy.
Timo Saloniemi
Well, if you're going to construct a shell, you need something to support it during the construction phase. They could just transport out the I-beams once they're no longer needed.
The I-beams always seem to be there when we see a saucer blasted by weapons fire. They really claim that the skin of the ship provides the structural integrity? (beyond the SIF, of course) How could you ever land a ship (or saucer) built like that? It seems like it would collapse under its own weight.
Obviously there are a few girders there, although whether they are part of the hull or part of the modular interiors is unknown.
Why couldn't the outer hull be the load-bearing part? That's how today's aircraft are all built. Or cars, really. If you need internal bracings, it just means you didn't build strong enough an outer hull.
OTOH, why should internal bracings prevent the installation of modular interiors? We're not talking about building an entire cargo bay, opening a giant hole in the hull and plugging the bay in. We're talking about building the cargo bay at an arbitrary location within the completed hull, out of elements that are of manageable size. Which is how some cruise ships today are constructed. Although beaming in entire rooms would of course also be a valid and practical approach.
As for the bridge being modular, why not? What in this picture prevents that interpretation? Of course, the bridge would always be a unique module rather than something you might plug in at arbitrary quantity at arbitrary locations.
Timo Saloniemi
Why couldn't the outer hull be the load-bearing part? That's how today's aircraft are all built. Or cars, really. If you need internal bracings, it just means you didn't build strong enough an outer hull.
OTOH, why should internal bracings prevent the installation of modular interiors? We're not talking about building an entire cargo bay, opening a giant hole in the hull and plugging the bay in. We're talking about building the cargo bay at an arbitrary location within the completed hull, out of elements that are of manageable size. Which is how some cruise ships today are constructed. Although beaming in entire rooms would of course also be a valid and practical approach.
As for the bridge being modular, why not? What in this picture prevents that interpretation? Of course, the bridge would always be a unique module rather than something you might plug in at arbitrary quantity at arbitrary locations.
Timo Saloniemi
The idea that the bridge would be a plug-in/tear-out module has been bandied about mainly with respect to the TOS movie ships, to explain how their bridge interiors could change so radically from movie to movie. Shane Johnson suggested it in his Mr Scott's Guide, and it has sort of caught on.
Also, before the movies, somebody made up a procedure for landing the saucer of Kirk's TOS ship, and suggested that the bridge there could be a separable module that could land on its own. Rick Sternbach suggested the same capabilities for the Voyager when designing her.
However, I have never heard it suggested in a Trek reference work that the bridge of the TNG hero ship would be an interchangeable module, let alone a separable one. And the design doesn't really lend itself to that.
Some take this modularity idea too literally anyway. A far more likely explanation to the change of two consoles between two movies is that a few guys with antigravs came in, unhooked the consoles, floated them out, floated new ones in, and hooked them in place. Even the moving of turbolift stations one step forward might be achieved in situ, by shuffling the modular "wedges" of the circumference a bit, rather than by unhooking the entire bridge and plopping in a new one.
Timo Saloniemi
Also, before the movies, somebody made up a procedure for landing the saucer of Kirk's TOS ship, and suggested that the bridge there could be a separable module that could land on its own. Rick Sternbach suggested the same capabilities for the Voyager when designing her.
However, I have never heard it suggested in a Trek reference work that the bridge of the TNG hero ship would be an interchangeable module, let alone a separable one. And the design doesn't really lend itself to that.
Some take this modularity idea too literally anyway. A far more likely explanation to the change of two consoles between two movies is that a few guys with antigravs came in, unhooked the consoles, floated them out, floated new ones in, and hooked them in place. Even the moving of turbolift stations one step forward might be achieved in situ, by shuffling the modular "wedges" of the circumference a bit, rather than by unhooking the entire bridge and plopping in a new one.
Timo Saloniemi
They probably would build the "separate" saucer & bridge module parts together.
Imaging bringing the bridge module over and finding out it's an inch too big to fit.
Imaging bringing the bridge module over and finding out it's an inch too big to fit.
Probably couldn't happen in the 23rd-24th century, considering how we usually manage to avoid such mistakes in today's highly modular shipbuilding.
And if it did, why, just take the ship or the module to a suitable spatial anomaly and shrink or enlarge by desired amount!
Timo Saloniemi
And if it did, why, just take the ship or the module to a suitable spatial anomaly and shrink or enlarge by desired amount!
Timo Saloniemi
Keep in mind that the ship is beeing built in zero gravity so certain conventional techniques relating to load bearing and gravity need not apply right away until the super-stucture is closer to completion. So innitialy they can lay horizonal beams and deck plates with out first adding load bearing support for them, essencialy they can build things out of order compared to planet based building techniques.
Since you're new here and I hate paperwork I'm giving you a friendly for flaming. Do this again and it's a warning. In the meantime I suggest you read the rules thread in the Announcements forum.
Similar threads
