Production and Commissioning

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:16 pm

On the contrary, assuming that two different designs, with different methods of connecting the saucer and engineering hulls (direct or via a neck) have different systems arrangements is emminently logical. The fact that there is considerable design commonality does not change that basic fact - it reduces the design work that has to be done for the Neb since they can cut-past the design of the forward two-thirds of the GCS saucer. It does not mean that the entire saucer is identical.

Jordanis · Post by **Jordanis** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:25 pm

It would decrease design work even more if they could cut-paste the entirety of the saucer.

Once again, do we have any clear shots of the zone between the Nebula saucer and Engineering hull? I am genuinely curious.

It occurs to me that you could create what amounts to a 'cap' to attach to the saucer before mating it to a Nebula. Basically, an extra docking collar that covers those sections that would be uncovered by the lack of gooseneck. The top half mimics the top surface of the Galaxy Engy hull, the bottom mates to the Nebula engineering hull in whatever way it's supposed to. Something no more than a deck or so thick. Basically enough to fill the void that's in the bottom of the saucer when a GCS is separated.

There, now you can use Galaxy saucers AND design the Nebula engineering hull more or less however you like. You could build that into the top of the engineering hull, too, if your complaint about that method is strength.

It would take more design effort to make a whole new attachment method, and destroy so much flexibility to do it, when it would be so easy to design around the clamps that come with the stock saucer. I mean, all jokes about starfleet being dumb aside...

Post by **Mikey** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:59 pm

On a related note, why are the bridges so different? I mean, they would use the same sized modules...

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:00 pm

Jordanis wrote:*snip*

Have a look at these images from the main site.

The second image shows that the nacelle pylons are integrated into the lower-aft saucer, and that the aft end of the Neb saucer lacks the cutaway of the Galaxy's. The fourth and fifth show a short neck rising from above the deflector, of a substantially different design to the Galaxy's neck.

Even if the Nebula could separate (highly unlikely given the degree of integration in the design) it's saucer couldn't dock with a Galaxy engineering hull (or vis versa) due to these design differences.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:58 pm

From the looks of it, it doesn't seem like it can seperate.

Anon · Post by **Anon** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:44 pm

Mikey wrote: While having interchangeable components like that would be a huge boost to logistics, we couldn't expect Starfleet design to show that much forethought.

Mikey, I wasn't talking about the similar looking saucer for the Nebula-Galaxy. I was talking about the fact that you said we shouldn't expect the Federation to show the forethought to take logistical planning into a design. I'm not assuming anything.

To everyone in the discussion:

Do the saucers look similar? Yes.

Would it make sense to use modular design? Yes.

Could you take a saucer from a Galaxy and put it on a Nebula? That's a big fat NO! Not without some sort of kit, as suggested above. The Galaxy Class and Nebula Class have different missions and as a result different subcomponents, so the interfaces and interconnections would be different. Of course the screenwriters and directors would probably say "yes" if they could get a really "cool" on screen sequence of it happening especially if it had a lot of drama associated with the switch like a ticking time bomb or something.

Is there anything from the show to back it up? No. And even if a graphics artist did make them look EXACTLY the same it was probably a result of using the "cut and paste" function, as opposed to any actual engineering thought or planning. I have always found the DITL database tries to explain or compensate for the inconsistencies resulting from a TV show, which had the pressure of producing 20+ episodes a year.

Either way I was talking about the DITL database, not the show. The Nebula was not touted as the replacement for two ships that according to DITL represent close to 33% of the Fed fleet which numbers 7,876 ships. The Galaxy was touted as that replacement, so I want to know whether the estimated production schedule of the Galaxy is a bit low.

Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:48 pm

You're right, of course, but unfortunately the valiant efforts to explain TV-show points in an in-universe milieu invariably lead to Starfleet engineering philosophy looking fairly obtuse.

In this particular case, I would chalk it up to using the same production "lines" in the interest of economy, while the actual construction of the two classes would preclude interchangeability.

Anon · Post by **Anon** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:54 pm

I agree completely.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:04 pm

Seems reasonable.

Anon · Post by **Anon** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:17 pm

According to TNG tech manual, the plan was to replace the Oberth with the Galaxy. First off that makes me wonder why they even bothered building the Nova. The DS9 Tech Manual claim that the Nova was the replacement to the Galaxy and Oberth but that makes no sense what-so-ever. The Galaxy was by far and away a more capable military vessel than the Oberth or the Nova class vessels. Plus it appears the Nova is ill-suited to take on the Galaxy missions. I mean the diplomatic capability of the Nova is a 1! The Galaxy's is 6. I agree with the DS9 Tech manual that the Nova, not the Galaxy, was the replacement for the Oberth, but that the DS9 tech manual was in error when it stated the Nova would replace the Galaxy.

It appears that the Oberth was a science vessel designed to explore within known (i.e. explored) Federation Space. As we all know space is really big! The number of scientific anomalies between populated planets is probably innumerable. More than likely the explorer vessels like the Miranda and Excelsior would travel searching for new life, and making note of scientific anomalies. An Oberth would probably be sent to study and conduct further investigation. The class of ship needed to explore these anomalies wouldn't need a diplomatic capability, since that is the Excelsior's job. It wouldn't need a lot of firepower since the explorer vessels should have cleared and scouted out the area. The Oberth was perfectly suited for this mission. Given the strength, the speed and the crew size I severely doubt the Oberth would be capable of ranging far outside of Federation space to conduct explorations, and I really doubt Starfleet would risk such poorly equipped vessels encountering a hostile race.

Let us take a look at the vital stats for the Galaxy, Nova, and Oberth.

Class: Strength | Crew | Normal Cruise | Max Cruise | Number of Ships
Oberth: 116 | 80 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 2,186
Galaxy: 1,000 | 1,014 | 6.0 | 9.2 | NA
Nova: 255 | 78 | 6.0 | 7.0 | NA

The Oberth class required ~175,000 people to crew the 2,186 ships in the Federation Fleet. If 2,186 Nova Class ships were built to replace the Oberth, the class would require a ~171,000 people. Compare that to the Galaxy which would require ~2,217,000. The manpower alone prohibits the Galaxy from being the replacement to the Oberth. Both the Galaxy and the Nova at Normal Warp would be a significant improvement in range over the Oberth. While 2,186 Galaxy Class vessels would expand the military capabilities to extraordinary levels, it does not appear to be a suitable substitute for the Oberth Class and its mission.

I think it is safe to say, the TNG tech manual was inaccurate, and the author, editor, and publisher did not realize the significant manpower difference between the Galaxy and Oberth Class.