Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
09-12-2011, 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naekuh View Post
isnt the galaxy not capable of atmosphereic flight?

The sauser section was designed incase it needed to go into the atmosphere?

And i think it should be made from jupiter fleetyards..
As its the fleetyard responsible for a lot of prototype ships..

http://stexpanded.wikia.com/wiki/Jupiter_Shipyards
There are no jupiter fleet yards... that link is to the star trek NON CANNON wiki....
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
09-12-2011, 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naekuh View Post
oh no i was wondering if they built it on mars.... how did they get it into space?

Brought it up section by section and then assembled in space?

Because as i said.. and i might be wrong... so im not sure.... but the galaxy cant fly in atmosphere due to its sheer size and structural constraints.

Thats why theybuilt the Intrepid small, so it could do flight in atmosphere.

If im wrong... someone please correct me.


Also i bought up jupiter shipyards, because i was under the assumption, it was suposed to be like lockeheed martin's "Skunk works"
As far as I know Lockheed doesn't exist in the 24th or 25th century.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
09-12-2011, 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by P.Funk View Post
In a future where the ability to go many times the speed of light is possible, not to mention the ability to utilize transporter technology that has already been proven to be impossible, its conceivable that carting large modules into space is more economical than it is to us now.

Modular construction is far more efficient, not to mention building a massive ship of that sort of complexity entirely in vacuum would be incredibly slow. EVAs in the Star Trek future dont' seem to be that much more dexterous so doing the kind of fine manual work necessary to build a ship like The Enterprise etc would be... extremely slow.

Construction within the atmosphere is really the only viable way to do it. We can assume that those crafty Starfleet engineers could find a way to lift it into orbit piece of by piece I'm sure.
Sorry if I wasn't specific enough. I wasn't taking able chunks of the Galaxy Class's superstructure. I was talking about modules like quarters and laboratories. Using industrial sized transporter in the ship yard to add or remove modules w/o having to cut into the hole seems to be a lot more efficient. Geting things lined up precisely from ground to orbit seems to be a bit beyond 25th technology. Having the Starship docked and precisely positioned with tractor mooring would be a lot better.

I think there is an upper limit on the size of modules that could be lifted from group to orbit. Most of the strength of the "modern" Startship superstructure comes from their Structural Integrity Field. Without the SIF in operation, the a starship hull would crumple like tinfoil under too much stress.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
09-14-2011, 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by P.Funk View Post
In a future where the ability to go many times the speed of light is possible, not to mention the ability to utilize transporter technology that has already been proven to be impossible, its conceivable that carting large modules into space is more economical than it is to us now.

Modular construction is far more efficient, not to mention building a massive ship of that sort of complexity entirely in vacuum would be incredibly slow. EVAs in the Star Trek future dont' seem to be that much more dexterous so doing the kind of fine manual work necessary to build a ship like The Enterprise etc would be... extremely slow.

Construction within the atmosphere is really the only viable way to do it. We can assume that those crafty Starfleet engineers could find a way to lift it into orbit piece of by piece I'm sure.
i really do hate it when people say its been proven impossible to do things. how the hell do you know whats impossible just because we have been on this world for what 7000 years of recorded civilisation we seems to think we know everything about the universe and what we can and cant do. i mean you cant say its impossible because to be honest we dont know if we are right about the science that says it is impossible we could be wrong.
sorry tired rant after spending 4 days solid on my dissertation
anywho yeah il go by the thing thats nothing is impossible.
anywho to the topic. i know the sovereign was constructed using some sort of holographic construction technique or so i have been told. The Galaxy i thought was constructed at utopia then moved to earth at McKinley if i remember rightly in all good things Picard visits the enterprise as he was taking command and it was in its dry dock around earth.
However if were going by construction methods they have bloody replicators why dont they just build massive replicators in orbit and use them to replicate ships??
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
09-14-2011, 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Jacobson00
Utopia Planitia fleet yards?
Every 'drydock' screenshot we've seen of it suggests Utopia Planitia, this is true.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
09-14-2011, 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anazonda View Post
On the point: "why is there no Enterprise class": With regard to the fact that Starfleet sees the name "Enterprise" as an epic ship, They would not build a ship, call it Enterprise, take it through shakedown and then say: Oh boy... The Enterprise class is a epic failiure... let's scrap this model.

It just would'n seem right.
In ST TMP features, it was hinted that some people behind the film development thought of the Constitution-refit as a new "Enterprise" class since it was such a different ship. So there was a possibility of it being one. The only thing that bugs the hell out of me is that the Enterprise is almost always said to be the first of it's class, but invariably there is a namesake ship of that class... even though in many cases that would be out of place. After all, there is a USS Constitution, Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, and Sovereign.

I would say that it probably would be easier for Starfleet Engineers to build what they could planetside since that is the environment we work best in, build the frame (or at least assembled) in orbit, and install portions as they could. Though I would also infer that they would be able to be far more precise in their movements in microgravity than us.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
09-15-2011, 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan6526 View Post
The only thing that bugs the hell out of me is that the Enterprise is almost always said to be the first of it's class, but invariably there is a namesake ship of that class... even though in many cases that would be out of place. After all, there is a USS Constitution, Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, and Sovereign.
The reason for that is because the ship names constitution excelsior and so on are all the prototypes the working model. So that would be the ship going around with NX on its hull rather than NCC. Really the only ship i could see being the enterprise class would be the NX, Archers enterprise it was the first of its kind. got that hurt to say lol
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
09-15-2011, 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan6526
The only thing that bugs the hell out of me is that the Enterprise is almost always said to be the first of it's class, but invariably there is a namesake ship of that class... even though in many cases that would be out of place. After all, there is a USS Constitution, Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, and Sovereign.
The ship class is named after the prototype or design proof vessel. This is the ship you use to iron out all the bugs to then design your actual production model. Once the production model is completed and all the bugs are verified to be removed you then bring the prototype up to this model's specification and commission her.

Technically the NX-class would be called the Enterprise class using "modern" Starfleet naming conventions. It was both the prototype and the first production model, with its sister ships modeled directly on her.

The 1701 was the first Constitution production model, but not the prototype (NX-1700 Constitution).

The 1701-B was the first actual production model Excelsior, with all the experimental transwarp technology ripped out and the entire ship "downteched" in comparison. It was apparently a good design considering the ship class stayed in service for the better part of a century.

The only thing we know for sure about the 1701-C is that she was neither a prototype nor a first ship of the Ambassador class. Novel sources make it clear that this class entered service while the 1701-B was still active. We know when it was destroyed however.

The 1701-D was however the first of the two initial production models for the Galaxy-class - Enterprise and Yamato. We do however see the USS Galaxy several times over the course of Deep Space 9.

The 1701-E was likewise a first production model, though the ship was initially not supposed to be called Enterprise but rather Honorius. This was changed after the 1701-D was destroyed.

Using the novels the 1701-A was also called the "Enterprise subclass" since there were numerous and obvious changes between the designs of that ship and the Constitution refit she was designed like.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
09-15-2011, 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zcenicx View Post
The ship class is named after the prototype or design proof vessel. This is the ship you use to iron out all the bugs to then design your actual production model. Once the production model is completed and all the bugs are verified to be removed you then bring the prototype up to this model's specification and commission her.

Technically the NX-class would be called the Enterprise class using "modern" Starfleet naming conventions. It was both the prototype and the first production model, with its sister ships modeled directly on her.

The 1701 was the first Constitution production model, but not the prototype (NX-1700 Constitution).

The 1701-B was the first actual production model Excelsior, with all the experimental transwarp technology ripped out and the entire ship "downteched" in comparison. It was apparently a good design considering the ship class stayed in service for the better part of a century.

The only thing we know for sure about the 1701-C is that she was neither a prototype nor a first ship of the Ambassador class. Novel sources make it clear that this class entered service while the 1701-B was still active. We know when it was destroyed however.

The 1701-D was however the first of the two initial production models for the Galaxy-class - Enterprise and Yamato. We do however see the USS Galaxy several times over the course of Deep Space 9.

The 1701-E was likewise a first production model, though the ship was initially not supposed to be called Enterprise but rather Honorius. This was changed after the 1701-D was destroyed.

Using the novels the 1701-A was also called the "Enterprise subclass" since there were numerous and obvious changes between the designs of that ship and the Constitution refit she was designed like.
Scotty's improvements
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:03 AM.