Galaxy class subtypes

The Next Generation

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby Mikey » Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:20 am

McAvoy wrote:How about raising an old blown up WW2 Battleship to be used as a space Battleship that somehow is comparable or better than purpose built space battleships? Is that doable?


Dude. Srsly. Don't fuck with Space Battleship Yamato.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 35522
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby Jim » Fri Aug 07, 2015 12:26 pm

I do not see putting a Nebula weapons pod onto a Galaxy as that odd of an idea.
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
Jim
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby Graham Kennedy » Fri Aug 07, 2015 4:01 pm

Starship shapes appear to be dictated at least in part by the shape of the warp field. For example the shape of the GCS follows the warp field like so :

Image

This implies, at least to me, that there is a sci-fied version of aerodynamics going on here. One could call it warp dynamics, or perhaps field dynamics or subspace dynamics.

The various shapes and configurations we've seen implies that there are many different "warp dynamic solutions" which work. One must suppose that some are better in some ways, others in other ways - just as there are different configurations of aircraft representing different compromises of the various forces on a given aircraft, leading to some aircraft optimised for low speeds and long range, some for high agility, etc.

To me, this indicates that it's really not quite as simple as being able to stick a giant hull extension on and then carrying on as before. Chances are your modified Galaxy is going to need a major change to the shape of the warpfield in order to accomodate it, lest the pod get ripped straight off the hull the first time it goes to warp. You're likely to need prolonged computer modelling of the new field shape, a complete overhaul of the flight software, probably modification of the nacelles - moving them up/down, forward/back, perhaps extending their length, perhaps even rebuilding of the hardware inside. And your ship is likely to emerge at the end with a completely different performance envelope - slower, less agile, probably less efficient. Perhaps it would not even be viable at all - the history of aerodynamics is replete with attempts at a modifications or new designs that didn't work for one reason or another.

This is not to say that such modifications would be impossible - We've seen Mirandas modified somewhat, slightly different versions of the Excelsior, etc, so clearly some modification is possible. And we know that in the real world they were thinking of hanging an engineering hull on the bottom of the NX-01 (which would have been awesome, IMO). So I'm not saying that these things can't be done, only that we really shouldn't assume that it would be a straightforward or easy thing to do to any given ship.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10811
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby Jim » Fri Aug 07, 2015 6:34 pm

But if you are talking about torps that are capable of taking out Borg cubes or Dominion Dreadnaughts or what have you... Wouldn't it be worth a little fiddling to get the pods out there?
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
Jim
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby Graham Kennedy » Fri Aug 07, 2015 6:41 pm

Sure. But is it just a little fiddling? Or is it more like somebody saying "Wouldn't it be really awesome if you took like a Patriot missile battery and mounted it on top of a B-52? Then if anybody tried to shoot it down, it would be like POW POW and they'd be dead!"
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10811
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby Mikey » Sat Aug 08, 2015 3:44 am

This. Since we don't know if warp dynamics works like traditional fluid dynamics, it is eminently possible that a minor-seeming addition could become an impossible hindrance in warp dynamics. In addition, even if such a modification were possible without rendering the ship immobile, it might affect the warp dynamics in such a way as to either reduce FTL mobility to the point of uselessness; or increase energy consumption to levels that affect other systems.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 35522
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby Jim » Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:54 pm

Graham Kennedy wrote:Sure. But is it just a little fiddling? Or is it more like somebody saying "Wouldn't it be really awesome if you took like a Patriot missile battery and mounted it on top of a B-52? Then if anybody tried to shoot it down, it would be like POW POW and they'd be dead!"


How different is the warp field of the Nebula? Same engines/etc so how difficult is it really to make the necessary changes?

I think that you are comparing apples to oranges. Actually, more like apples to refrigerators. The comparison might be more like "Wouldn't it be really awesome if you took like a cannon or, appropriately, a Vulcan onto cargo plane?" ... and the C130 gets angry. Or, for the dynamics side... "Wouldn't it be really awesome if you took like a giant radar/etc pod on top of a passenger airliner like a Boeing 707?"
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
Jim
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:32 pm

Jim wrote:
Graham Kennedy wrote:Sure. But is it just a little fiddling? Or is it more like somebody saying "Wouldn't it be really awesome if you took like a Patriot missile battery and mounted it on top of a B-52? Then if anybody tried to shoot it down, it would be like POW POW and they'd be dead!"


How different is the warp field of the Nebula? Same engines/etc so how difficult is it really to make the necessary changes?

We don't know. That's my point. Perhaps it is easy... but then perhaps it's really, really difficult.

I think that you are comparing apples to oranges. Actually, more like apples to refrigerators. The comparison might be more like "Wouldn't it be really awesome if you took like a cannon or, appropriately, a Vulcan onto cargo plane?" ... and the C130 gets angry. Or, for the dynamics side... "Wouldn't it be really awesome if you took like a giant radar/etc pod on top of a passenger airliner like a Boeing 707?"

The C130 modifications are very minor on the outside; pretty much just a couple of pipes sticking out of one side. The E-3 far more so (and I'll bet they did a LOT of testing on the aerodynamics of that modification).

But again, I freely admit that it might be as simple as that... I just say that it also might not be. It might well be a vastly complicated and expensive process, more akin to making a major change to a modern plane like an F-22, where it means years of modelling and testing every part of the flight envelope, rewriting the immensely complex fly-by-wire programs, etc.

And the fact that we don't often see major addons or redesigns of ships indicates to me that it leans more towards the difficult than the easy.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10811
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby McAvoy » Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:08 pm

You could compare Trek ships to subs too. There are examples of near total reconstructions on subs from WW2 to take on modern weapons, ideas and additional speed. Stuff like that.

I agree that just placing a giant pod on top of a Galaxy would probably require a ton more modifications to the warp field, handling characteristics, shield configuration and so forth than just bolting crap on the ship itself.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby Coalition » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:36 pm

Wasn't the Galaxy class supposed to be 1/4 to 1/3 empty to allow for future upgrades? Use some of that space for the various types. Instead of a bolt-n pod, it is a ~rectangular chink that is put inside the saucer or engineering section. When that pod is no longer needed, the ship returns to a starbase, has the pod removed, and either replaced or used for cargo capacity.
Relativity Calculator
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
Coalition
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:34 am
Location: Georgia, United States

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby McAvoy » Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:09 pm

Never heard of a pod thing for the Galaxy class. The shop isn't designed for that anyway. I think you are thinking of the TNG Technical Manual on proposed Nova class designs.

I also think you are mixing it up with the Dominion War built Galaxy class ships that were accelerated to get into the fleet faster. No need for the frills during war.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby Mikey » Sun Aug 30, 2015 3:17 am

McAvoy wrote:I also think you are mixing it up with the Dominion War built Galaxy class ships that were accelerated to get into the fleet faster. No need for the frills during war.


Yes, this sounds like the thing. Something about GCS's being rolled off the lines with a lot of empty interior space, because they were built without all the "space hotel" amenities in order to speed up the time from keel being laid to on the front.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 35522
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby McAvoy » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:35 pm

It's stated in the DS9 Technical Manual.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby Andrew82 » Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:50 am

What would be funny is to separate a galaxy and nebula class ships and swap drive sections. So saucer section off a galaxy class on to a nebula drive and visa versa.
User avatar
Andrew82
Petty officer third class
Petty officer third class
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:04 am
Location: Rotherham, United Kingdom

Re: Galaxy class subtypes

Postby McAvoy » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:20 am

Wouldn't they just still be regular Galaxy and Nebula class ships. It seems that the saucers are the same. Just different configurations of the primary and secondary hulls.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

PreviousNext

Return to TNG

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest