Next generation starship program

[Zwinmar]

I am wondering if you couldn't use an Orion drive plate type device to mostly encase the warp core so that in the event that the safeties fail it would still limit the damage.

[Borgholio]

I am wondering if you couldn't use an Orion drive plate type device to mostly encase the warp core so that in the event that the safeties fail it would still limit the damage.

Or even better, if the core were to breach, have the containment shell actually work to direct the blast out an emergency exhaust port under the ship? Think of a battle tank where if an enemy scores a hit on the magazine, it explodes OUT of the tank through specially designed emergency hatches instead of into the crew compartment. Such a thing would keep the warp core from being as destructive, since most of the explosion is directed out of the ship and not contained like a grenade.

[Tribble]

I am wondering if you couldn't use an Orion drive plate type device to mostly encase the warp core so that in the event that the safeties fail it would still limit the damage.

Or even better, if the core were to breach, have the containment shell actually work to direct the blast out an emergency exhaust port under the ship? Think of a battle tank where if an enemy scores a hit on the magazine, it explodes OUT of the tank through specially designed emergency hatches instead of into the crew compartment. Such a thing would keep the warp core from being as destructive, since most of the explosion is directed out of the ship and not contained like a grenade.

IMO the problem with that idea is that the antimatter will annihilate virtually any matter it comes into contact with. Unless the containment shell is made out of dilithium it's just going to add to the explosion. I'd imagine using dilithium in that manner would be prohibitively expensive.

[Borgholio]

The shell could have a self-powered forcefield, simillar to the warp containment field. It also doesn't need to be fully made of dilithium, a simple internal lining should suffice.

[Eternal_Freedom]

If this outer containment shell isn't directly coming into contact with the antimatter then it doesn't need to be made of dilithium, the Orion pusher plate idea would work, since by the time the explosion is hitting the shell its hard radiation and plasma just like a nuke fireball.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok, first thing first. I am making a few assumptions regarding the way star trek ships operate. These assumptions are as follows

Ship mass and weapon output do not scale linearly. We are not dealing with guns that require a sufficiently large mount in order to fire the weapon and not capsize the boat or shake it apart. A Type XII phaser is a type XII phaser, irrespective of what the ship displacement is. The limit is in the reactor and power systems, which limit how many such weapons etc can be mounted.

I would do away with the phaser strips entirely. Think about how those things work, either they are fed by a central power line with each emitter being fed by connection to the others in serial, or each emitter in the strip has its own power conduits. Either configuration is extremely vulnerable. Raking fire from beam weapons etc can bring down the entire array, or easily cut power.

Turrets are not good either, because those take time to traverse and high angular velocity will throw them off target. Instead, I would use a system similar to an insects compound eyes. A set of emitters arranged into hemispheres fed through a central power line. Each emitter would have a few degrees of deflection (say, 10) done optically rather than through a traversing mechanism (or if not possible depending on the physics of phasers, that deflection could be achieved mechanically). This has a few advantages. There is a single power line and the arrays present a smaller target, the power can also be split between emitters for rapid firing point defense along different vectors. Three of these much more efficient designs also gets the same coverage as a wrap-around phaser stripe, but three targets can be engaged instead of 1, or multiple beams can converge on the same target, depending on ship orientation.

Against the borg, I want KE weapons. Spinal mounted railguns. I want spinal mounted railguns. 1 forward, 1 rear, on the stardrive section. I also want the main deflector dish to be modular. No more of this "spend hours to reconfigure the dish to emit different types of exotic particles/energy". No. I want that to be doable in minutes or even seconds through the use of preconfigured modular components.

Institute heavy compartmentalization of the ship using physical pressure and blast doors. Jeffrey's tubes included. Force fields are insufficient to task. In the event of power failure, said doors must be powered using natural magnets, with power being required to open them. Default state is closed. Not only does this ensure that pressure is contained, but protects the ship during boarding actions and Borg infiltration.

This same philosophy applies to ship systems. It is all well and good to have a central power core (the warp core) providing power most of the time, but there also need to be backup systems that take the load off the main systems. I would recommend a series of fusion reactors in the high GW/low TW range, one for each gun emplacement. It would increase charge time for the multi TW phaser arrays, but it is better than losing power completely. The same goes for the shields. Multiple independent shield grids covering different regions I think are already canon, at least for newer ships (as per Nemesis, with older designs not using that system), but each one should have its own independent power source as well in case main power is lost, that is at least capable of maintaining current levels or boosting recharge.

Damage control... what to do with damage control...

Armored belts combined with ablative crew quarters, with all essential systems being buried in the ship. Like that. Also, all command systems buried in the ship within an armored citadel with redundant life support. I like that too.

Ok. I am operating on assumption with respect to why consols explode, even when shields are up. I am assuming that when energy strikes the shield, it gets absorbed and re-radiated back into space. However, the energy field/bubble/whatever that the shield generators produce has to be connected to the generators. This means that some energy gets fed back into the shield generator. In order to not destroy the shield generator (though I suspect that said generator is heated when this happens, and shield damage happens as a result of temperature overloads) that energy has to be dissipated through the ship's power systems. The big circuits can handle the loads, but the smaller ones cannot. The energy is high enough that even with circuit breakers, shit explodes. Better then to redirect that energy (somehow, I am not sure if this is even possible) into some sort of capacitor that can discharge the energy into something useful like emergency power.

I think that a lot of damage control functions can be handled using robots. Not sentient androids, but tele-operated drones. In combat, bring everyone into CiC and Engineering, with the external parts of the ship being populated with repair drones, each operated using an encrypted but isolated wireless link by way of of a human in a grav couch and VR control rig. If shit gets really fucked up, you still have the option of sending a human damage control team (to replace a slagged shield generator or something), but why should people do a job (rerouting around a damaged power conduit, fighting fires etc) that robots can do? If you lose inertial dampening, your crew is fine in grav couches up to something like 20 Gs (not withstanding other factors), and the robots are just fine to operate while the ship still accelerates. In fact, everyone should be in grav couches while in combat, unless they are set upon suddenly.

Ship security... Ok. Phasers sidearms are fine, but given that hostile forces can transport in anywhere, chokepoint defense is sometimes not an option. Transporting TR 111s or something like that should be the primary ranged weapon used to repel borders. Also useful against the borg, and even if transporters are inhibited, they are still useful slug throwers. Melee weapons should also be issued and trained in for the same reason. Users choice there. Particularly useful against the borg. I like short polearms like halberds and pole-axes, but maces would work just as well. Experience has shown that borders often transport onto the bridge in numbers in the event of shield failure, and a ranged weapon is less useful when someone does that right next to you with a bat'leth or borg nanoprobe injectors. These sorts of engagements often devolve to hand to hand fighting. Bringing your fists to a sword fight is ill-advised. Better to have a sword.

If you get a STFC-esque incident where the borg manage to take engineering and start working their way through the ship, a wall of halberds blocking the access corridors backed up by TR111s is a good option. Of course, I might be somewhat biased there, being something of a medievalist. My love of polearms may be blinkering me there.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Instead of melee weapons and questionable prototype weapons why not simply issue shipboard security a combat shotgun of some sort. I do not think we have ever seen shipboard combat that occurs at a range that would render them ineffective. Different ammo load-outs could be issued based on the expected opposition. Say solid AP slugs against Borg drones or armored opponents, and something lighter for unarmored or lightly armored ones. If you are that concerned with melee opponents appearing right next to the user suddenly, how about reinforcing the body/barrel enough to be able to block a strike and still be functional afterwards. Add a bayonet lug, or build it into the weapon by default if you want. Maybe throw in a few carbines into the squad if there are some long hallways.

There is no reason to design and maintain polearms or any other melee weapon for one specific foe that are pretty much useless against anyone else. You could probably even use modern real-life weapons without any changes and be perfectly fine. My only concern would be the ability to block a melee strike from some of the stronger aliens and not have the weapon be rendered inoberable.

[BabelHuber]

Imagine you were the head of the Starfleet design bureau, and were given carte-blanche regarding how to go about building the next generation of starships. For this scenario, this takes place a few weeks after the encounter with the Borg at Wolf 359. Assume that you only have minor improvements over the current generation of technology to work with, (so no 1-offs or alien tech). What sort of vessels would you design?

Rather than just designing a few new ship classes, I'd have a look at the current Federation strategy and the available ships and their purposes/ capabilities. Then I would determine what's needed long-term to counter threats like the Borg and finally create a plan to convert Starfllet from their present state to the state needed.

As I see it, the Federation focuses on multi-purpose vessels which are well-suited for independent tasks. Classes like the Galaxy, Miranda and Excelsior are all cruiser-like types. They all have:

- Long range/ are suited for long-term missions like exploring
- High Warp speed (at least initially, when the class is new)
- Enough internal capacity to transport civilians/ cargo/ soldiers
- Enough firepower and shields to defend themselves against similar ships

Older types are kept in service for decades or even a century (like Miranda/ Excelsior). When they get outdated, they are upgraded and/or relegated to second-line duties. In ase of war, they have to be used for front-line services, though (we see lots of Mirandas/Excelsiors in the Dominion war, and at least the Mirandas seem to be unable to take or dish out much damage on screen).

In TNG, we e.g. don't see ships like the Maquis raiders in Federation service (in DS9, the Peregrine-class took part in retaking DS9, though). We don't see much dedicated Federation transports. Time and time again the Enterprise is sent to some outpost to supply medicine/ transport civilians etc.

Lots of these tasks could be taken over by cheaper single-purpose ships, which would free up resources to create dedicated battleships. Of course the Federation still would need cruisers, just not as many.

So I would:

- Mass-produce cheap transport ships for regular transport duties. These can be produced in own ship yards which are not necessarily outfitted to produce cruisers to keep costs down (think of the Liberty Ships in WW2)

- Mass-produce something like the Peregrine-class. They should be able to handle smugglers/ pirates and control Federation territory in remote locations. Also they can be used as cheap escorts for the transports.

The disadvantage of a single ship is that it can be only at one location at a given time. Peregrines on the other hand don't have that disadvantage. Depending on the mission, you could send one ship or a few dozen.

This would add lots of flexibility to Starfleet.

- Mass-produce a Frigate-like ship. Something like the Defiant in size, but with less firepower/ shielding and more internal space. Such ships could take over missions a peregrine can't while being much cheaper than a real cruiser. Of course such a ship would be unsuited for front-line service, though.

- Continue to produce cruisers, They can handle missions the Peregrines/ Frigates can't, or serve as flagships in remote areas, where they would work together with the smaller ships.

Edit: Cruisers can also be used for front-line service, like scouting and fighting enemy cruisers.

- Mass-produce the Defiant class. Those would be the primary front-line vessels (like the Klingon BoP or the Dominion's bugs)

- Produce real battleships. Something as big as the Galaxy-class (or even bigger), but without multi-purpose capabilities. It doesn't need to be as fast as a cruiser or have the same range, instead it needs to be honed-to-the-bone for fighting.

Cruisers could of course outrun such a vessel easily, but this doesn't help if the battlehip is about to do something nasty, e.g. attacking a solar system or block trade routes.

Finally, I would create a real army, with heavy weapons etc. for planetary fights and some sort of marines for operating in space. Of course these troops would be equipped with melee weapons, protective armor and projectile weapons.

[Simon_Jester]

These two examples are passive as they require no user input to active.

That's really not what is meant by passive safety for this kind of engineering. You are simply describing automatic active safety systems with seemingly numerous complex points of failure. The mere fact that a human operation is not required is not useful passive safety. biostem has the better idea.

A computer passive safety system would run more more like this. The reactor is held in by bolts which are spring loaded to open, and said bolts locked in place in place by electromagnets. The power system for the containment system also powers the magnets. If the later looses power the bolts retract and the reactor falls out on its own (with no gravity we'll assume another giant spring for this purpose).

This is a good system if you're trying to minimize the threat of a reactor meltdown/blowup.

The main problem being that for it to work, the warp core has to be physically located next to the surface of the hull. Hits that penetrate the shield and inflict at least minor damage on surface compartments are pretty common in Star Trek combat, so this means the ship will be relatively vulnerable to a crippling attack on the warp core. And in combat, an attack that damages the warp core and forces the safety systems to eject it is a mission-kill, likely to become a catastrophic kill as soon as the enemy finds time to lob another torpedo or six at you.

So basically you have conflicting objectives: mount the warp core somewhere it's hard for enemy fire to get at it, or mount the warp core somewhere it's easy to eject into space if something goes wrong. While dangerous warp core problems are a common hazard in Star Trek, enemy fire is an even more common hazard, especially if we're designing these ships with the expectation that they're going to have to fight more than the ships of the pre-Wolf 359 era.

I can see overriding safety systems being permissible on a Starfleet ship in extreme emergency, perhaps by authorization of the CO, if a last-ditch maneuver is called for or a boost to the weapons systems at the expense of other systems.

Or, and this is a real issue in Star Trek, if some exotic, unknown force or enemy is interfering with the safeties such that it threatens to cause an accident in and of itself. Having the ship eject the warp core when an ejection is unwarranted may be less bad than having the core explode inside the ship, but it's worse than almost any other survivable accident that might befall the ship.

A nuclear reactor on Earth does not go into battles or near stars. It does not encounter unexpected circumstances. And when something unexpected happens, it is safe to let the rod drop into place to interrupt the nuclear reaction. On a starship this means the loss of the battle or the loss of the ship and its crew in other critical situation.

I'd like to point out that on the real world nuclear powered warship aboard which I served, we certainly DID have systems in place to automatically shut down the reactors in the case of problems. We had systems which required active power to keep the reactor "on", which would shut it off by completely passive means if power to those mechanisms were lost. From Wikipedia:

On the other hand, that was a fission reactor- which is by nature pretty easy to passively safe because you can turn it off by dropping a bunch of metal bars into it. We're not talking about just "safing" a fission reactor, we're talking about physically blasting the reactor out of the hull.

Imagine building a nuclear carrier capable of ejecting a reactor in an emergency. Given how large and bulky the reactors are, that would not be a trivial design requirement, especially if you want to make it so easy to do so that the reactor will eject by default if an active, powered system fails.

For every random warp core explosion that has occurred in Star Trek, there have been numerous other random glitches or shutdowns of other powered systems on the ship. So this does present a problem.

That would be one of my big pushes if I were in charge of a next generation starship program--can we find a power system that ISN'T a big bomb kept on the cusp of exploding?

Definitely desirable, but it honestly seems like the Federation has no idea how to do this; antimatter is the only thing that can supply their large, fast ships' power requirements, and the only design they have for antimatter reactors has problems with surplus fuel in the reaction chamber.

They have fusion power and that might well work for low-end applications, but it wouldn't provide enough raw energy for them to build ships that can compete in direct combat against, oh, the Klingons. And you just KNOW the Klingons aren't going to stop using antimatter reactors just because the things are dangerous and kaboom-prone.

I am wondering if you couldn't use an Orion drive plate type device to mostly encase the warp core so that in the event that the safeties fail it would still limit the damage.

Makes it hard to get at the warp core for maintenance, but this is at least a sane idea.

[Borgholio]

They have fusion power and that might well work for low-end applications, but it wouldn't provide enough raw energy for them to build ships that can compete in direct combat against, oh, the Klingons. And you just KNOW the Klingons aren't going to stop using antimatter reactors just because the things are dangerous and kaboom-prone.

Well actually, the only real issue with fusion reactors on a starship is that they supposedly can't provide enough power to enter warp. DS9 had a fusion reactor and it held off an entire fleet of Klingon and Dominion warships...so there's no real NEED for a M/AM reactor for defensive purposes, just propulsion. In fact, not everybody needs a M/AM reactor. The Romulans use an artificial black hole, and the Phoenix (IIRC) used a fission reactor to power the warp engines.

I think that if all that is needed is a burst of power to break the warp barrier, why not have a large fusion reactor feeding energy into a capacitor? That would provide enough juice to get the ship moving in warp, then the reactor itself can sustain the warp field once they've achieved FTL speeds.

[Zeropoint]

Of course, I might be somewhat biased there, being something of a medievalist. My love of polearms may be blinkering me there.

I believe it is. Seems to me that if you've got room to shove a halberd into someone's guts, you've got room to shove a shotgun or rifle into their guts (and then pull the trigger). That will get you a more powerful attack with less demand on the user, AND you can still attack from a distance.

If your opponent is close enough that they're grappling with you and you can't bring the gun to bear, that would be an equal problem for a melee weapon. Again, though, if you can get the point of a dagger into your enemy, you can get the barrel of a pistol into your enemy.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Something has occurred to me since this discussion of passive warp core safety began. We've only ever seen problems with this on Galaxy and Intrepid class ships, whereas the old Connies, the Defiant and the Sovereign class ships have had no such problems.

This suggests to me that there is some peculiarity with the core designs of those two classes. Moreover, we know that, on the Sovereign class at least, the core ejection system worked under battle conditions and (more importantly) did not apparently seriously impede the E-E in combat.

Thus I submit that arguing over the small details of how to build an improved warp core is unnecessary given that for the vast majority of Federation starships the existing systems work just fine.

[Prometheus Unbound]

wait when did Intrepids have common warp core issues? We've only seen two - and Voyager hasn't seen a starbase for years and in the first episode the core received damage - I would really not bring much of Voyager's evidence into the fold for intrepid class ships - all the modifications they made for slipstream, underspace, subspace catapults, the time travelling, anomalies that turned the ship inside out etc - all with no starbase to check for issues.

And I don't think Voyager's core ever exploded, did it? Enterprise D's did enough times (usually in time travel / alt universe episodes). I don't recall Voyager actually exploding. At least their ejection systems worked lol.


And look at Year of Hell - the battering that ship took and still didnt have warp core problems...

[Eternal_Freedom]

Fair point. Ok then, we only see serious issues in Galaxy class ships, and even then only in two of them - Enterprise and Yamato, and the latter was a computer issue. Given the pounding later-production Galaxies take in Dominion War battles it seems a problem limited to the E-D.

Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks Yamato is a really odd name for a big explorer starship? Especially when compared to the other Galaxy class ship names (Galaxy, Enterprise, Odyssey, Venture, Challenger and so on).

[Prometheus Unbound]

Yes very odd indeed. But then Enterprise was named after a navy war carrier I guess. The Intrepid was based on any number of UK warships... guess it was a decision made because Yamato is a famous Japanese ship name plus I'm it crossed their mind - Space Battleship Yamato lol.

You have US names, Canadian, UK, French, Russian etc - Japan had to be represented ... I can't think of any others off the top of my head that the average person would recognise. I suspect that's the reason.

But in an in-universe setting - yeah the name makes no sense to me either. All the others are about going on an adventure (Odyssey, Venture) or something "explorationy". With the exception of Enterprise which was named after... the Enterprise heh.

[SilverDragonRed]

There is Musashi and Kongo. I don't know how recognizable those names are, but they should about as much as Yamato.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'm not objecting to Japanese names being represented, it's more that Yamato doesn't fit the "theme" for the other ships in her class.

[Crazedwraith]

Since Yamato was the first Galaxy we met other than big E it's more the later ship's names don't fit with hers.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Not really. If we go purely by the first two, then they're named for famous WW2 warships (the most prominent use of Yamato Americans would likely have heard of) which still doesn't fit with being explorers and "not a military organisation" according to Picard. Even together the two don't fit as one was a carrier and the other a fuckoff-huge battleship.

Especially since we knew the E-D was a Galaxy-class ship right from the start on it's dedication plate (IIRC), so Yamato still doesn't fit the pattern.

[Borgholio]

Not really. If we go purely by the first two, then they're named for famous WW2 warships (the most prominent use of Yamato Americans would likely have heard of) which still doesn't fit with being explorers and "not a military organisation" according to Picard. Even together the two don't fit as one was a carrier and the other a fuckoff-huge battleship.

Especially since we knew the E-D was a Galaxy-class ship right from the start on it's dedication plate (IIRC), so Yamato still doesn't fit the pattern.

Don't forget the USS Challenger. Galaxy class captained by Geordi. I think that while some of the Galaxy class adhere to a naming theme, there were several exceptions made.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well Challenger, in addition to the obvious space shuttle example, was a Royal Navy ship that did a bunch of exploratory missions, as well as one of the Apollo LEMs/CSMs (can't recall which) so the name has considerably more "exploration" associated with it than Yamato does.

[biostem]

Something has occurred to me since this discussion of passive warp core safety began. We've only ever seen problems with this on Galaxy and Intrepid class ships, whereas the old Connies, the Defiant and the Sovereign class ships have had no such problems.

This suggests to me that there is some peculiarity with the core designs of those two classes. Moreover, we know that, on the Sovereign class at least, the core ejection system worked under battle conditions and (more importantly) did not apparently seriously impede the E-E in combat.

Thus I submit that arguing over the small details of how to build an improved warp core is unnecessary given that for the vast majority of Federation starships the existing systems work just fine.

Even taking that into consideration, I would argue that a redundant/supplementary warp core and passively safe systems, would only improve said starship's performance.


I wonder if you could somehow use a warp-capable shuttle to propel an entire starship - even if it was only at a very low warp factor...

[SpottedKitty]

I wonder if you could somehow use a warp-capable shuttle to propel an entire starship - even if it was only at a very low warp factor...

Not sure about getting any actual movement, but I'm sure I remember (maybe in Voyager?) a couple of times they used shuttles to supply a bit more emergency power. Or I might be thinking about one of the books, where the SFX budget was a bit higher.

• Clip on jump leads
  Everyone get out and push
  Bump start starship

[Simon_Jester]

Well actually, the only real issue with fusion reactors on a starship is that they supposedly can't provide enough power to enter warp. DS9 had a fusion reactor and it held off an entire fleet of Klingon and Dominion warships...so there's no real NEED for a M/AM reactor for defensive purposes, just propulsion. In fact, not everybody needs a M/AM reactor. The Romulans use an artificial black hole, and the Phoenix (IIRC) used a fission reactor to power the warp engines.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Deep Space 9 is much larger than any starship. Its fusion reactor may be too large and bulky to fit on a mobile platform unless you make that mobile platform big. And making the reactor very large has other problems (it's a big target that has to be protected by big armor and it distorts the physical shape of the hull which may have adverse effects on warp field geometry).

The Romulans' artificial black hole engines... do not sound safer than a warp core. In fact, honestly, I cannot possibly imagine how you would "safe" a black hole inside your ship. The only plausible failure modes for the engine in an emergency are "black hole explodes in a spray of Hawking radiation" and "black hole eats your ship." Not a recipe for being safer than an antimatter warp core.

The Phoenix was also barely capable of Warp One; it's a bit like suggesting that we could power modern fighter jets with a liquid fuel rocket, because that's what the Bell X-1 used to break the sound barrier.

I think that if all that is needed is a burst of power to break the warp barrier, why not have a large fusion reactor feeding energy into a capacitor? That would provide enough juice to get the ship moving in warp, then the reactor itself can sustain the warp field once they've achieved FTL speeds.

Have we seen Trek ships sustain high warp speeds on fusion power alone after an initial burst from the antimatter reactor?

Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks Yamato is a really odd name for a big explorer starship? Especially when compared to the other Galaxy class ship names (Galaxy, Enterprise, Odyssey, Venture, Challenger and so on).

Yamato is, as I recall, actually the Japanese name for the nation of Japan- or one of several names for related concepts. Thus, it can also be a callout to the entire nation of Japan, as well as to the (short-lived, unsuccessful in combat) battleship of that name.

There will probably come a day when someone will unironically name a ship Titanic, too.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Something has occurred to me since this discussion of passive warp core safety began. We've only ever seen problems with this on Galaxy and Intrepid class ships, whereas the old Connies, the Defiant and the Sovereign class ships have had no such problems.

This suggests to me that there is some peculiarity with the core designs of those two classes. Moreover, we know that, on the Sovereign class at least, the core ejection system worked under battle conditions and (more importantly) did not apparently seriously impede the E-E in combat.

Thus I submit that arguing over the small details of how to build an improved warp core is unnecessary given that for the vast majority of Federation starships the existing systems work just fine.

Even taking that into consideration, I would argue that a redundant/supplementary warp core and passively safe systems, would only improve said starship's performance.


I wonder if you could somehow use a warp-capable shuttle to propel an entire starship - even if it was only at a very low warp factor...

I agree with that, but honestly all the talk about designing ever-more detailed systems is...unnecessary as best I can tell. A secondary/supplementary core is still a good idea though, hence my idea of using two standard Sovereign-type warp cores in my (maybe slightly expanded) sovereign class hull, so I can literally turn the engines up to eleven if needs be.

Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks Yamato is a really odd name for a big explorer starship? Especially when compared to the other Galaxy class ship names (Galaxy, Enterprise, Odyssey, Venture, Challenger and so on).

Yamato is, as I recall, actually the Japanese name for the nation of Japan- or one of several names for related concepts. Thus, it can also be a callout to the entire nation of Japan, as well as to the (short-lived, unsuccessful in combat) battleship of that name.

There will probably come a day when someone will unironically name a ship Titanic, too.

I know it's a name for Japan (it also turns up as a race in the original Age of Empires of all places) but even then it still doesn't seem to fit. If other Galaxies were named things like Britannia or Albion or Avalon then maybe. And yes I know I'm only using alternate-British names as examples, sue me, I'm British, that's what I know.