First Contact - Enterprise-D Intro (Venture Variant)

[bladela]

[McAvoy]

I know there is alot of people who don't like the Galaxy class but that is a beauty shot there.

Good model too, gives it a bit of scale to show how big a GCS is.

I do wonder if anyone attempted to make a larger CGI model. Bigger the model the more detail and possibly gets rid of the shiny aspect CGI models have when done on a smaller scale.

[Atekimogus]

I know there is alot of people who don't like the Galaxy class but that is a beauty shot there.

I have the feeling quite a lot of people dislike the non-sensical approach of the GCS (families onboard etc.) but just from a design point of view it is imho hard to argue that this is one of the most beautiful and well designed sci-fi ships period.

While the sovereign is a beautiful ship also.....it lacks the "majesty" of the GCS.


As for the video....great idea....I would have loved to see the E-D well into the movie-era......however, I do have to say that this CGI model is not particularily detailed. Seems to be from a computer game. On a guess I would say this was done in a moddel Bridge Commander game?

[McAvoy]

Most people I have seen who don't like the Galaxy class is due to the saucer. Top heavy and all. To be honest I can see that in some close up shots where the saucer could distort it and look overly large to a small body.

Big head small body look I suppose.

[Nutso]

I imagine most galactic powers, when they see that big saucer turn towards them, want to be diplomatic all of a sudden. After all, Enterprise D went up against a Borg Cube solo, and it was the Cube that was destroyed.

[Graham Kennedy]

The big head thing makes sense to me. Your engineering systems produce the power, propulsion, etc. Your saucer holds the labs and accommodation. So over time, the engineering systems shrink in proportion to the 'mission' space. Seems reasonable.

[Atekimogus]

The big head thing makes sense to me. Your engineering systems produce the power, propulsion, etc. Your saucer holds the labs and accommodation. So over time, the engineering systems shrink in proportion to the 'mission' space. Seems reasonable.

I think that was the idea behind the design or at least what Andrew Probert intended, no?

Considering this, the Intrepid class makes quite a bit more sense than the later Sovereign which - although beautiful in her own way - seems like a step backwards.


That being said...I always wondered how a "true" successor to the GCS would look like. If you consider the difference in volume, the Sovereign really isn't playing in the same class. Personally, I am NOT a fan of Star Trek starships getting more streamlined and "aerodynamic" and I do not like the arrow-shape of the Intrepid/Prometheus etc. I am more a fan of a proper saucer section, be it round or ovall.

Most fan imaginations or semi-offical designs for an Enterprise F (like in Star Trek online) are inspired by the sovereign.........considering the consistency in design, the Sovereign - for me - is an outlier, an exception.

And all the things that are getting HEAVILY criticized as being nonsensical (Neck section, vulnerable nacelles etc.) I do rather enjoy. To me...the sovereign and Intrepd do not look like Starfleet ships lacking the neck section....

[Graham Kennedy]

The big head thing makes sense to me. Your engineering systems produce the power, propulsion, etc. Your saucer holds the labs and accommodation. So over time, the engineering systems shrink in proportion to the 'mission' space. Seems reasonable.

I think that was the idea behind the design or at least what Andrew Probert intended, no?

I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Considering this, the Intrepid class makes quite a bit more sense than the later Sovereign which - although beautiful in her own way - seems like a step backwards.

Depends on what you think the Sovereign was for. My thinking is that it's a more militarised ship than the GCS. So a smaller saucer, larger engineering hull (in proportion), and gigantic nacelles for sustained high warp speeds.

That being said...I always wondered how a "true" successor to the GCS would look like. If you consider the difference in volume, the Sovereign really isn't playing in the same class.

In volume terms it's 5,820,983 m^3 to 2,429,193 m^3 - the GCS is 2.4 times the size of a Sovereign. So yeah, really not the same kind of ship at all. Following the historical trend, we'd expect the replacement for the GCS to be something like 15% longer, maybe 50% bigger in volume.

[McAvoy]

I never felt the Sovereign was a direct successor to the Galaxy class like the Excelsior was to the Constitution and the Ambassador to the Excelsior and of course the Galaxy to the Ambassador.

To me it seems to be a more contemporary type of ship. Sort of like for example, if the original JFK CVN-67 was sunk and then replaced by a Nimitz class carrier.

Or better yet how the US Navy replaced the USS Yorktown with a Essex class in WW2.

I think the true successor to the GCS probably wouldn't be around until the turn of the 25th century or what the E-F could be.

[bladela]

I never felt the Sovereign was a direct successor to the Galaxy class like the Excelsior was to the Constitution and the Ambassador to the Excelsior and of course the Galaxy to the Ambassador.

To me it seems to be a more contemporary type of ship. Sort of like for example, if the original JFK CVN-67 was sunk and then replaced by a Nimitz class carrier.

Or better yet how the US Navy replaced the USS Yorktown with a Essex class in WW2.

I think the true successor to the GCS probably wouldn't be around until the turn of the 25th century or what the E-F could be.

I agree that a Galaxy successor I don't think makes sense before twenty, thirty years from Galaxy's commissioning (maybe at the time of STP it should be in development or even in service).

I imagine a version certainly more militarized but still with a strong propensity for exploration, as every starfleet flagship should be.

[Atekimogus]

I never felt the Sovereign was a direct successor to the Galaxy class like the Excelsior was to the Constitution and the Ambassador to the Excelsior and of course the Galaxy to the Ambassador.

To me it seems to be a more contemporary type of ship. Sort of like for example, if the original JFK CVN-67 was sunk and then replaced by a Nimitz class carrier.

Or better yet how the US Navy replaced the USS Yorktown with a Essex class in WW2.

I think the true successor to the GCS probably wouldn't be around until the turn of the 25th century or what the E-F could be.

I agree that a Galaxy successor I don't think makes sense before twenty, thirty years from Galaxy's commissioning (maybe at the time of STP it should be in development or even in service).

I imagine a version certainly more militarized but still with a strong propensity for exploration, as every starfleet flagship should be.

That depends how successfully you can upgrade GCS ships to new technology. Although they might have been designed with a longer service life in mind, the technological leaps introduced for combating the Borg and the Dominion (especially in the Defiant) could mean that the GCS far to outdated and complicated to upgrade and in need of a replacement rather soon.

On the other hand...since all systems are highly modular, I cannot imagine a reason why you "couldn't" upgrade a GCS with Sovereign/Defiant-Class technology, which would make it a fearsome ship indeed.

[bladela]

That depends how successfully you can upgrade GCS ships to new technology. Although they might have been designed with a longer service life in mind, the technological leaps introduced for combating the Borg and the Dominion (especially in the Defiant) could mean that the GCS far to outdated and complicated to upgrade and in need of a replacement rather soon.

On the other hand...since all systems are highly modular, I cannot imagine a reason why you "couldn't" upgrade a GCS with Sovereign/Defiant-Class technology, which would make it a fearsome ship indeed.

i would think it should be easier to update a galaxy than an excelsior, and we have seen what they did on the Lakota.

[Captain Seafort]

i would think it should be easier to update a galaxy than an excelsior, and we have seen what they did on the Lakota.

Not necessarily. Think about the various rebuilds of pre/early-WW1 battleships in the 30s and 40s - depending on the precise class involved the refits massively improved their firepower, protection, armour, anti-aircraft armament, speed or engine efficiency, usually some combination of several of the above. None of these improvements were possible on recently built battleships because they were already incorporating the technology that made those improvements possible.

Likewise, all the Lakota refit really did was replace 75+ year old technology with modern technology. Refitting a decade-old Galaxy in the same way wouldn't have anything like the same effect, and probably wouldn't be cost effective.

[bladela]

Not necessarily. Think about the various rebuilds of pre/early-WW1 battleships in the 30s and 40s - depending on the precise class involved the refits massively improved their firepower, protection, armour, anti-aircraft armament, speed or engine efficiency, usually some combination of several of the above. None of these improvements were possible on recently built battleships because they were already incorporating the technology that made those improvements possible.

Likewise, all the Lakota refit really did was replace 75+ year old technology with modern technology. Refitting a decade-old Galaxy in the same way wouldn't have anything like the same effect, and probably wouldn't be cost effective.

only a few fleets have implemented truly significant changes in battleships, mainly Italian and Japanese, with results that were ultimately mediocre.

I imagine that after the Dominion War while all the incomplete Galaxies are completed Starfleet can take the opportunity to update the tactical systems, the ship is already there, and partially disassembled.

[Captain Seafort]

only a few fleets have implemented truly significant changes in battleships, mainly Italian and Japanese, with results that were ultimately mediocre.

Everyone was doing it, to great effect - the Italians turned the Andrea Doreas from next to useless to modern fast battleships, the Japanese turned the Kongos from battlecruisers into fast battleships, the UK transformed Renown and gave the QEs a new lease of life (especially QE herself and Valiant), and the US rebuilt the near-useless Standard-type Pearl Harbour wrecks into the battle line that won Surigao Strait.