Who does everyone seem to hate the Galaxy Class

[andrewgpaul]

As for unnecessary space, if you leave out the non-crew living quarters and reduce the consumables in the cargo hold by an equivalent amount, you have a great deal of empty space. re-assign any still-used space to the centre of the saucer, and voila, the saucer is smaller.

No argument. The question is could the equipmwnt that the Galaxy has on that saucer be fitted onto the smaller one? At least for the phaser arrays the answer is likely 'no, because there would quite simply be no room for them.

Not sure I understand you here. are the physical size of the phaser array emitter strips related to the power of the beam? If so, then you're correct. If, as I thought, the strip was only of that size to provide adequate arcs of fire, then, with a smaller saucer (shrinking the secondary hull while leaving the engineering hull unchanged is probably an oversimplification of what's involved), commensurably smaller emitter strips are required. After all, it's the arc length, in radians, that's important, not the surface area.

As for beam generators, well, they'd fit into a smaller saucer, by the logic of my previous post.

As for tactical, strategic and operational concerns regarding ship size, you're probably right. However, combat was never the primary role of the Galaxy; it was mostly intended to be used, from what I remember , as an explorer

On that note, it's been a while (10 years, probably!) since I watched TOS or TNG, but the impression I got was that the E-D spent less time actually exploring outside the Federation (ie, Boldly Going) in its seven years (screen time; wasn't the mission profile for 12 years) then the original Enterprise. It always seemed to be ferrying diplomats, or sneacking back to Earth, or carrying out unsupervised and poorly thought out engineering experiments or something.

[Batman]

As for unnecessary space, if you leave out the non-crew living quarters and reduce the consumables in the cargo hold by an equivalent amount, you have a great deal of empty space. re-assign any still-used space to the centre of the saucer, and voila, the saucer is smaller.

No argument. The question is could the equipmwnt that the Galaxy has on that saucer be fitted onto the smaller one? At least for the phaser arrays the answer is likely 'no, because there would quite simply be no room for them.

Not sure I understand you here. are the physical size of the phaser array emitter strips related to the power of the beam? If so, then you're correct. If, as I thought, the strip was only of that size to provide adequate arcs of fire, then, with a smaller saucer (shrinking the secondary hull while leaving the engineering hull unchanged is probably an oversimplification of what's involved), commensurably smaller emitter strips are required.

The problem being that you have no proof whatsoever of the size of the array NOT being relevant to the power of it. ANY circular away would give it coverage equal to the E-D's saucer arrays. If size doesn't matter why aren't there scores of smaller arrays on the later War Galaxy's? Why didn't the Sovereign?

After all, it's the arc length, in radians, that's important, not the surface area.

To coverage, not firepower. That the array size is irrelevant to this is your contention.

As for beam generators, well, they'd fit into a smaller saucer, by the logic of my previous post.

If the array size is unrelated to its firepower.Which so far you have not shown.

As for tactical, strategic and operational concerns regarding ship size, you're probably right. However, combat was never the primary role of the Galaxy; it was mostly intended to be used, from what I remember , as an explorer

Which is the bone me (and most of my vs-minded fellows, I venture) like to pick: Either make your fleet (or a subset thereof) an exploratory one, OR make exploration a mission of the Navy. If it's the second (as it apparently was during TOS) DON'T put civilians aboard the ships.

On that note, it's been a while (10 years, probably!) since I watched TOS or TNG, but the impression I got was that the E-D spent less time actually exploring outside the Federation (ie, Boldly Going) in its seven years (screen time; wasn't the mission profile for 12 years) then the original Enterprise. It always seemed to be ferrying diplomats, or sneacking back to Earth, or carrying out unsupervised and poorly thought out engineering experiments or something.

And you'd be wrong ( I think). While TNG spent a lot more time ferrying useless civilians around etc I think that's mainly to there being a lot less of TOS. They had to manage The Elaan of Troius (sp?), The Ultimate Computer, that Babel Conference (Journey to Babel IIRC)...

[Stormbringer]

As for being bigger than it needs to be, the x5 was a throwaway comment - how many times bigger is a Galaxy than a Constitution? They both did the same job, after all. Yes, the area of explored space on the Federation border is greater, after 80 years of expansion, but that can be resolved by building more Constitutions, Mirandas, etc.

Sorry, but you're wrong. By your reasoning the US would have been much better off by building shitloads of escort carriers instead of the carriers/supercarriers it did. The Constitution did the same job the Galaxy did against opponents that were of the same power. You cannot simply assume five 200,000 ton ships have the same firepower/resilience as one 1,000,000 ton ship (otherwise 5 10,000 tons WW2 light cruisers aught to have an even-money chance to kill a 50,000 ton WW2 battleship and that simply isn't going to happen).

You're making the unjustified assumption that the Galaxy uses it's mass and volume as efficiently as the Constitution-class. The simple fact is it does not as evidenced by the massive alotment of space devoted to crew and family quarters. That fifty thousands tons of cruiser would handly match 50,000 tons of ships when 20,000 is devoted to being a cruise ship.

PS: Five 10,000 ton heavy cruisers could actually give a battleship a major headache actually if not sink it outright, particularly if they have good torpedoes.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, I would assume that the Soyuz survived, as we didn't see it die, except for one problem: If it survived in each iteration, there would be several dozen copies of it produced by the anomaly.

Since they were trapped in the anomaly much longer than the Enterprise, it follows that blowing up is not a requisite for restarting the loop. Then again, NOT blowing up was what broke the loop... ugh.

[Rogue 9]

Not sure I understand you here. are the physical size of the phaser array emitter strips related to the power of the beam?

According to Alyeska, yes. I remember this from a while back when there was some argument over why the Defiant didn't make more use of its phaser strips.

[Alyeska]

Well this is proof that they screwed the E-D over badly in Generations.



In "Best of Both Worlds pt2" the Enterprise-D fired a total of 6 phaser shots and 3 torpedoes in a span of just one second. The E-D should have slaughtered the BoP in Generations with ease.

[brianeyci]

In "Best of Both Worlds pt2" the Enterprise-D fired a total of 6 phaser shots and 3 torpedoes in a span of just one second. The E-D should have slaughtered the BoP in Generations with ease.

Considering that the BOP in ST:III was outgunned "10 to one", the Galaxy should have at least outgunned the BOP "10 to one", unless weapons technology became far more potent than shield technology.

The in-universe answer for Generations would be something like "the Klingons knocked out whatever whatever systems that regulated fire control and that the Enterprise was only able to fire phasers". Etc.

Two torpedoes from the Enterprise in ST:III didn't take out the Bird of Prey, and we get to see exactly how many torpedoes it takes to kill a Bird of Prey in ST:VI. If armor technology kept pace with weapons technology, then this would be a fair estimate.

Brian

[Rogue 9]

In Star Trek VI the Bird of Prey's shields were down, as the commander was too much of an idiot to drop his cloak and raise shields. Lord knows he had enough time, the way that torpedo was spiraling in searching for his exhaust trail. (I just had the luxury of watching that on TV on Sunday, so I remember the scene quite well.)

[brianeyci]

In Star Trek VI the Bird of Prey's shields were down, as the commander was too much of an idiot to drop his cloak and raise shields. Lord knows he had enough time, the way that torpedo was spiraling in searching for his exhaust trail. (I just had the luxury of watching that on TV on Sunday, so I remember the scene quite well.)

Very well. Two torpedoes was enough to drop the shields of the BOP in ST:III -- the Klingon Commander was asking "why doesn't he finish us?" which would imply that his shields were gone or about to be gone.

So... subract total torpedoes fired from Excelsior and Enterprise in ST:VI by five or so, and you get enough to kill a BOP. Even a worse knock against Generations, which if I remember correctly required a full spread of torpedoes to knock out Duras.

<edit> and no. Do you remember how long it took the BOP in ST:III to decloak? Almost five seconds, and it took so long to power its torpedoes. So perhaps it would have taken longer than that for Chang to drop cloak and raise shields -- if he did it as soon as the torpedo was shot, maybe, but he was waiting to see if the torpedo tracking was actually working, so it was a misjudgement on his part. And he would still have been outgunned 20 to 1 =D </edit>

Brian

[The Silence and I]

Stormbringer Wrote:

Quote:
None of the above was standard from TNG. The saucer impulse engines were previously only used when the saucer seperated. Now any time you see the backside of a GCS all three engines are running. As you can also see there are various modifications to several Galaxy class ships. None of them minor.

Those are nifty pictures. They don't however prove that the warp core was refitted nor does it prove the impulse engines are new, just that they're being used. Should I just accept your concession on that now?

Those pictures may not be black and white proof, but surely you realize in TNG the Ent-D never used all three impulse engines at once, regardless of the situation. That using the entire impulse system is common by the time of DS9--even when not in a situation requiring full acceleration potential--must suggest something has changed.

EDIT: hit submit too early...

Quote:
We have seen examples of the ships suffering damage far in excess to what happened in TNG. Explicit statements are not needed when we have other supporting evidence.

Way to ignore the burden of proof. So you're admitting that you've got no proof at all for these upgrades of yours really taking place? Just the ships didn't blow up. Never mind that there are a good many other explanations, some of them much simpler?

I am genuinely curious about what you mean by "a good many other other explanations, some of them much simpler;" you have mentioned damage control as a possible explanation to replace the improved warp core idea. But Generations does not seem to agree with you--once the core suffered a "coolant leak" there was nothing Geordi or any other engineer could do. Damage control could do nothing for this situation. "Cause and Effect" also disagrees, the time between impact and detonation was 41 seconds. 41 seconds is not enough time to do much. Upon impact drive plasma was vented, in the first 15 seconds Geordi to shut down the core, 14 seconds later Data reported the core shutdown was unsuccessful. They then tried to eject the core, but that too was unsuccessful. There was nothing else anyone could do.

The damage sustained in Generations is worth squat next to what we see Galaxy's take in DS9. Had a coolant leak occurred those ships would have died--not a single one did. I do not think damage control means as much as you think it does when the original Galaxy core is involved, and I do not think luck is really a suitable argument.

Bottum line for me:
Minor damage in TNG causes irreversible core destruction.
Extensive damage in DS9 to the ships' entire hull, including the engineering hull, results in no breaches.
Now, when I say extensive damage I should clarify with an example: IIRC one galaxy was seen missing most of the saucer section--even the Reliant didn't take so much punishment.

I ask you, what explanation is simpler than popping in a shiny new warp core?

[Stormbringer]

Bottum line for me:
Minor damage in TNG causes irreversible core destruction.

And how many times did Enterprise-D avoid catastrophes by the skin of their teeth? Yeah, there definitely seem to be conditions that irreversably destroy the Galaxy but you can duck a lot of them. We've got plenty of examples in canon.

And quite frankly given the piss poor performance of the Ent-D in Generations I have to wonder whether it really way hopeless. For all we knew Geordi could simply have said screw it. Riker phoned in his performance in that battle, why not Geordi too?

Extensive damage in DS9 to the ships' entire hull, including the engineering hull, results in no breaches.
Now, when I say extensive damage I should clarify with an example: IIRC one galaxy was seen missing most of the saucer section--even the Reliant didn't take so much punishment.

Even if that's true the warp drive isn't in there. It's in the engineering so the saucer can theoretically take the beating far better. It shouldn't cause the ship to explode at all!

I ask you, what explanation is simpler than popping in a shiny new warp core?

Simple, installing a few long over due safety systems and better damage control. And by better damage control I mean training them in military damage control. No doubt that they neglected that as much as they neglected other combat training.

It requires a lot less of baseless essumption.

[Alyeska]

Stormbringer, one way or another they fixed issues on the GCS which brought it back to the same aproximate safety level of the rest of the fleet. Be that they increased safety readiness (seems unlikely given safety should be the same throughout the fleet) or they adressed issues within the system, or they outright replaced the core itself.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

So, if phaser strip size dictates firepower, can they make smaller phaser arrays by simply "spiralling" or coiling longer phaser strips?

[The Silence and I]

So, if phaser strip size dictates firepower, can they make smaller phaser arrays by simply "spiralling" or coiling longer phaser strips?

Now there is a picture! Imagine one of those firing TNG Galaxy style *watches points of light spiraling around and around...promptly gets dizzy*

In actual fact--sure, I see no reason it couldn't be done, unless there are issues with the angles involved. I see no good reason a phaser array could not have a sharp curve/corner but I suppose they are all gently sweeping affairs for a reason... *shrug* Dunno for sure.

[Rogue 9]

So, if phaser strip size dictates firepower, can they make smaller phaser arrays by simply "spiralling" or coiling longer phaser strips?

I doubt it, simply because how would the "inner" end of the spiral meet the "outer" end without short circuiting the strip?

[Sharp-kun]

I doubt it, simply because how would the "inner" end of the spiral meet the "outer" end without short circuiting the strip?

Why would they meet?

[Batman]

So, if phaser strip size dictates firepower, can they make smaller phaser arrays by simply "spiralling" or coiling longer phaser strips?

I doubt it, simply because how would the "inner" end of the spiral meet the "outer" end without short circuiting the strip?

Wether or not Bob's idea works, the strip ends meeting is NOT a problem. All of the phaser strips on the E-D EXCEPT for the saucer ones are straight lines, so them being a closed circuit is obviously not required.

[Rogue 9]

So, if phaser strip size dictates firepower, can they make smaller phaser arrays by simply "spiralling" or coiling longer phaser strips?

I doubt it, simply because how would the "inner" end of the spiral meet the "outer" end without short circuiting the strip?

Wether or not Bob's idea works, the strip ends meeting is NOT a problem. All of the phaser strips on the E-D EXCEPT for the saucer ones are straight lines, so them being a closed circuit is obviously not required.

I see. Objection withdrawn.

[Stravo]

Personally I never really liked the Galaxy, thought it was ungainly, bloated and hardly graceful. It grew on me because my initial reaction when TNG premiered was horror at the new Ent design, now I simply tolerate it.

One aspect I like about the Galaxy is the design flaws. The idea that this was a ship class that was troubled and had serious issues with it that are only in the obsolscence phase being worked out. She was not the uber ship of doom that many Enterprises end up becoming. (ie. Constitution, Sovereign Class)

It was kind of cool that the Enterprise rotuinely overcame her design flaws to continue the tradition of being the finest ship in the fleet. That aspect was kind of refreshing.

[Stormbringer]

Stormbringer, one way or another they fixed issues on the GCS which brought it back to the same aproximate safety level of the rest of the fleet. Be that they increased safety readiness (seems unlikely given safety should be the same throughout the fleet) or they adressed issues within the system, or they outright replaced the core itself.

It's not as safe as comporable vessel unless they fixed the design flaws. Unless the design flaws have been corrected it still has those vulnerabilities. Just because a competent crew, which they should have had to begin with, can overcome it doesn't mean that they're safe.

With out any canon evidence supporting the extensive refit and overhaul of the Galaxy classes warp core I'm still inclined to caulk their survivability to better training rather than fixing the ships.

[Alyeska]

Stormbringer, one way or another they fixed issues on the GCS which brought it back to the same aproximate safety level of the rest of the fleet. Be that they increased safety readiness (seems unlikely given safety should be the same throughout the fleet) or they adressed issues within the system, or they outright replaced the core itself.

It's not as safe as comporable vessel unless they fixed the design flaws. Unless the design flaws have been corrected it still has those vulnerabilities. Just because a competent crew, which they should have had to begin with, can overcome it doesn't mean that they're safe.

With out any canon evidence supporting the extensive refit and overhaul of the Galaxy classes warp core I'm still inclined to caulk their survivability to better training rather than fixing the ships.

Better training seems rather odd seeing as the whole fleet should have the same training. Furthermore several of the problems shown with the Galaxy class wouldn't be saveable with just better training. The Warp Core was so unstable that relatively minor amounts of damage could seriously unballance it. While it was saved several times, just a couple more shots would have screwed them over completely. The sheer beating we've seen several Galaxy's take and knowing that crew monitoring several critical components HAD to die leads me to believe that they did physical fixes on the ship. Coupled with the knowldge that several Galaxy's did indeed spend a significant time in space dock for a variety of modifications, its not far fetched to assume that older model GCSs had the warp core problems fixed (they've had enough years to document them) while newer GCS's simply had the design flaws removed durring construction. Its the logical course of action and not entirely unreasonable to assume they did this considering the evidence we have available.

[The Silence and I]

There is additionaly evidence: Linky

Starfleet went to some lengths to improve the newest Galaxys'; improvements which should have addressed the warp core issues (I think we can all agree there were design issues beyond simple lack of training--whatever your stance on the importance of that training). Once the design problem has been identified it is prudent you apply it to the older ships as well--losing an entire ship is much more expensive than updating the engine systems. Especially as everything we have seen about Federation engine systems indicates they are modular, and thus easily replaced.