Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Starship construction times

This is topic Starship construction times in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/523.html

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

I've been wondering about this... how long would it take an advanced civilisation such as the Feds to completely assemble (from scratch) a, Galaxy? Probably, each ship is constructed entirely at one shipyard (i.e. so that all the parts are built and put together at one place). Almost 75% of any ship can be produced with industrial replicators, of course, but the remaining 25% resources have to be transported to those shipyards. I can't remember, but I read somewhere that during the Dom. War, the Feds were producing one ship each three days, so that would mean that an average starship can be manufactured in only three days (the morale of the workcrew would also be of influence)

NB I'm talking about CONSTRUCTION ONLY here, not the design stage (which presumably takes years)

------------------
"Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"

Posted by Saboc on :

Well, if the ship is a prototype, it will take a long time to build...For example, the USS Intrepid NX...something...took like more than 12 years to build. If a ship is not the prototype, then it really depends on the size of the ship. For example, it only takes shipyards a few weeks to build a Defiant-class. I'm sure it will take at least a year to build a Galax or Nebula. It takes StarFleet only a week (don't quote me on this) to complete a runabout from scratch...

I remember that we had a few similair threads about this...I think they are now in the archive...

------------------
Spend all your time waiting for a second chance, a break that would make it ok...

[This message has been edited by Saboc (edited November 27, 1999).]

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :

"I read somewhere that during the Dom. War, the Feds were producing one ship each three days, so that would mean that an average starship can be manufactured in only three days"

The above statement is only true if there is only one starship being produced at a time, and if there is only one shipyard. The truth of the matter is that it takes somewhat longer to produce a single ship.

Assuming that starfleet has at least five shipyards, and that each shipyard has at least two ships in production simultaneously, it would be reasonable to assume that each shipyard (on average) required 30 days to produce a single ship.

The 30-days-per-ship rate of construction would vary depending upon several factors. If a critical non-replicable component did not arrive on schedule it could cause a delay in the ship's construction. If the construction crew had high morale or was highly motivated (and was well-rested, etc.) the construction time would be somewhat less.

It is reasonable to assume that smaller ships would require fewer resources and thus would be constructed somewhat faster than larger ships, but this is offset by the fact that there are nearly as many parts in a smaller ship as a larger one, so the number of assembly steps is only somewhat less than for a larger ship.

Three days to manufacture a ship? Well, operhaps a shuttlecraft or possibly a runabout, but only if all the parts are on hand to start with.

--Baloo

------------------
"It is required of every man," the Ghost returned, "that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellowmen, and travel far and wide; and if that spirit goes not forth in life, it is condemned to do so after death. It is doomed to wander through the world -- oh, woe is me! -- and witness what it cannot share, but might have shared on earth, and turned to happiness!"
-- Jacob Marley's Ghost (A Christmas Carol -- Charles Dickens)
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

A couple weeks for a Defiant sounds utterly impossible, IMHO. That's like saying we can build a 4/5 story high building, about 170/120m long, and put all the highly advanced equipment like computer cores, warp cores, replicators, and endless wires in within a month. It's utterly impossible.

Now, take today's modern US Nimitz Class Carrier. Approximatly twice the length of the Defiant, it takes 4 years from the keel being layed to the ship being released from drydock. It then takes another year or two to complete all the details for her final commissioning. And with the most recent Nimitzes (sp?), like USS Harry S. Truman CVN-75 (commissioned June 1998), they actually built the ship in massive modules. Each module was prebuilt elsewhere and then attached to the existing hull, and so on.

Now, if you ask me, it takes at least 2 years to build a Defiant, and even then, it would take longer if it were from scratch.

As for construction yards works being high on morale, I doubt if that is possible during war time. The workers would be living in fear, because yards are prime targets, and they would be overworked to get ships out into the fleets, causing stress.

------------------
"The things hollow--it goes on forever--and--oh my God!--it's full of stars!" -David Bowman's last transmission back to Earth, 2001: A Space Odyssey

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Can't they just replicate ships?

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Anarchias de meizon ouk estin kakon." - Creon

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Oh, and as for Federation Yards, we currently know of 8 (I think):

San Francisco (Earth)
Earth Station McKinley (Earth)
Spacedock 1 (Earth, according to DS9TM)
Copernicus (Luna)
Starbase 134 (Rigel VI, according to DS9TM)
Utopia Planitia (Mars)
Antares (Antares IV)
Beta Antares (Antares Sector)

Also, I would conjecture that each fleet yard is capable of working on 50 starships at any given time, with possible exception of Earth Station McKinley, which appears to only have 1 dock.

------------------
"The things hollow--it goes on forever--and--oh my God!--it's full of stars!" -David Bowman's last transmission back to Earth, 2001: A Space Odyssey

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Er... The Antares Shipyard is in the Bajor Sector, which is definitely not where the star Antares is...

As for time to build a ship... Well, IMO, we don't know. Unless they specifically say on the show how long it takes, we have no way of accounting for factors that we may not even know about. Given the technology difference, I don't really think it can be compared to the construction of current warships.

I forget, how long did it take them to build that copy of the Defiant in the mirror universe? However long that was, we can assume it takes less time for SF to build one.

------------------
"Is he live or dead? Has he thoughts within his head?"
-Black Sabbath, "Iron Man"

Posted by Sir Camelot on :

Didn't the TNG-tech mannul say that it took like 20 years to build the E-D?

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :

I don't know how long it takes to build a starship, but here's some information about Liberty Ships. During World War II, 18 shipyards around the country delivered a total of 2,700 of the ships from 1941 to 1945. Each ship had 30,000 components and displaced about 10,000 tons.

This is from www.liberty-ship.com:
Once the production lines got under way, the time taken to build a Liberty at Fairfield Shipyard dropped to as little as 28 days. On the average, it took 592,000 man-hours to build a Liberty Ship. The construction of one Liberty ship required 3,425 tons of hull steel, 2,725 tons of plate, and 700 tons of shapes, which included 50,000 castings.
The Kaiser shipyard in Oakland, California, built the SS ROBERT E PEARY, from keel laying to launching, in 4 days 15 hours and 30 minutes. The PEARY was then outfitted, painted, taken on sea trials, the crew was trained and the vessel fully loaded with 10,000 tons of cargo. The PEARY sailed 7 days after the keel was laid.

------------------
When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

I've mentioned this before about the Bajor Yards/Antares Yards - I reckon that the Antares Yards - Bajor Sector - doesn't mean the Antares Yards IN the Bajor Sector - but that the Defiant was built/developed - first - after the Q Who Borg Panic - at the Antares Yards - and then - cause O'Brien did so much work on the Defiant to actually get it to be a fully functioning ship - that the Bajor Sector - read DS9 - was reckognised too...

Andrew

------------------
"What's an Oprah?" - Teal'c, Stargate-SG1

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Except that the dedication plaque would have been made before the ship ever went to DS9...

------------------
"Is he live or dead? Has he thoughts within his head?"
-Black Sabbath, "Iron Man"

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

The mirror Defiant took 1 year to build. Smiley stole the plans from DS9 in "Through the Looking Glass" - 1 year before "Shattered Mirror".

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :

The Liberty ships were a special case. They were designed to be quickly constructed (and quickly wear out). Instead of the time-consuming (but much, MUCH stronger) method of riveting the hull together, the Liberty ships were welded together. The liberty ships were designed to have a service life of no more than 10 years (piffle as far as modern seagoing vessels are concerned).

You'd think that welding would be more watertight than rivets, but apparently rivets hold the ship together better than welding. It was a trade-off that allowed a vast increase of available transport ships to be constructed in a minimum time. I suspect that much of Starfleet's additional ship construction was allocated to vessels that, like the Liberty ships, provided logistical support.

Throughout history, the ratio of actual fighting forces to the logistical support required for them to fight has been creeping towards a higher amount of support required for each unit that fights. If that trend continues into the future, I would expect that each fighting starship requires a very large number of noncombatant vessels and personnel to keep it in fighting shape. Such logistical support would probably include resupply vessels to provide the ships with replacement stores such as food, medicine, and possibly personnel, hospital ships, salvage and repair tenders, etc.

Some of the support vessels would be civil vessels that were subsidized by the Federation with the understanding that in wartime conditions, they would become support vessels for the war effort, much as many airliners are subsidized by the U.S. government with the agreement that in wartime, they will be subject to use as transports. The owners are compensated for their trouble, and the compensation is part of the agreement. It's sort of like being in the reserves, except airliners aren't required to do 2 weeks of Active Duty each summer .

The remaining logistic support vessels would be Starfleet vessels that had already been constructed, and would include vessels that were already in service, vessels that had been mothballed and returned to service, and vessels that were constructed specifically to support the present effort. This last group would probably have been designed to be quickly constructed and just as quickly recycled at the end of the emergency. After all, starships are made of valuably rare stuff.

--Baloo

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

Right... I forgot that the Feds have more than 1 shipyard... that raises the average construction time of course. Still, I don't believe it takes that long to construct a Galaxy since the assumption is based upon modern-day aircraft carrier assembly time (a Nimitz-class carrier is about half the lenght of a Galaxy if I'm not mistaken). We do not have replicators and plasma-torches and all those other tools at our disposal.
As for each ship having the same components, this is only partially true: a Defiant-class warship doesn't need to have, say, exobiology laboratories onboard, while a Galaxy has much of its internal space dedicated to labs and the like. Also, the Defiant's engines aren't as massive as those of a Galaxy so they require far less resources to construct. I believe therefore that such a vessel can be completed within a month of all the materials (those which cannot be replicated) arriving (albeit at a push).

------------------
"Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :

You guys are gonna kill me but I think the TNG tech man said that the ent d took 7 years to construct and launch. On the Ent e cutaway poster, I believe it gives a similar time frame putting construction start sometime during the early seasons of TNG. Of course the enterprises were made fairly early in their class' history, so maybe that timeframe has been cut down a little. I still can't imagine a Galaxy can be built in less than 4 years. Maybe three during war time. That could be why a bunch of Galaxy's popped up at the end of war.

------------------
"Resolve and thou art free."

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :

TSN: "Unless they specifically say on the show how long it takes, we have no way of accounting for factors that we may not even know about".

In the end of "Best Of Both Worlds" someone said that the fleet (40-50 ships) would be replaced in a year.
Does that count as an estimate? I don't know.

------------------
-You are crazy.
-I thought I was pisces.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, yes, assuming that we can trust that person to know what they're talking about. :-)

------------------
"Is he live or dead? Has he thoughts within his head?"
-Black Sabbath, "Iron Man"

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Well, it was Shelby that said so, wasn't it?

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Probably. But she's not a shipyard engineer. What does she know about ship building?

------------------
"Is he live or dead? Has he thoughts within his head?"
-Black Sabbath, "Iron Man"

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

She might know a thing or two about *reassigning* ships, if she has recently been given some extra authority to devise an anti-Borg defence. Perhaps she meant "We'll have the 3rd Fleet that is tasked with protecting Earth up and running within a year", a feat accomplished by draining the fleets 1, 2 and 4 through 14 of ships?

One of the spots drained of starships would be the Cardassian border, still undermanned in "The Wounded". This might explain why the Cardassians were so bold in "Chain of Command" and why Starfleet didn't send hundreds of ships then.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Seven days to build a complete ship? No wonder we lost the war...

Timo: The Cardassian border was no exception. TNG showed a permanent lack of starships, as opposed to the ship inflation in DS9 (see separate thread).

------------------
"Naomi Wildman, sub-unit of Ensign Samantha Wildman, state your intentions." (VOY: "Infinite Regress")
Ex Astris Scientia

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

TSN re Antares/Bajor shipyards...

I think it is easy enough to replecate a new plaque... or that the ship had a new dedication ceremoney when O'Brien had made her working... Did we see the plaque in The Search? maybe it was a quick ceremony before they took her into the GQ... I mean they added an MSD why can't they change the dedication plaque!?!

Andrew

------------------
"What's an Oprah?" - Teal'c, Stargate-SG1

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

In "The Search" the ded plaque was behind the bridge conference table. The same place as where the MSD eventually shows up.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

But we don't get a close up or they could have rededicated her a plaque - cause O'Brien did all the major work like getting her engines up to spec with out shaking them to pieces - before they went to the GQ... and the installation of the cloaking device too...

Andrew

------------------
"Its a CLOCK!" - Sisko, "Dramatis Personae" DS9.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

For the record, paraphrased from ST:TNG TM. pp15-17.

2347 "...system fabrication begins..."
Coming as this does at the tail end of a lot of "design frozen" comments, I take this as the point at which the earliest systems were beginning to be assembled into what will be the first Galaxy-Class starship, although an argument could be made that the REAL construction did not begin until the first frame members were "gamma welded" at Utopia Planitia in 2350.

The first Galaxy Class ship was launched in 2358, although it was moving only on thrusters.

So that means between 8-11 years, depending of what you're counting, for a ship of that size and complexity, starting with new and never-before fabricated parts.

I would assume that this process would speed up significantly once large-scale production began, much as it does for any radically new make of vehicle. How long did it take Henry Ford to make the first Model T, compared to the time it took during the height of their production?

I would also assume that this process would be significantly faster in the case of smaller, less "luxurious" vessels, more "standardized" ships with less purposes, and vessels for which spare parts might be lying around in, say, a depot.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Shadow:
Can't they just replicate ships?

Thank's Ritten for pointing me towards this 3 year old thread. [Big Grin]

To answer your question The Shadow, (or is it Aethelwer?) I point you to the explaination at the bottom of page 17 of the TNG TM;

quote:
Given the existance of matter replication (like the show's "food replicator" terminals), a very logical question is: "Why can't they just replicate entire ships?" The real reason is that such an ability would allow us to create entire fleets of starships at the touch of a button. This might be great for Federation defence and science programs, but would make for poor drama. For this reason, starship construction facilities (seen at Utopia Planitia in "Booby Trap" and Earth Station McKinley in "Family") have been depicted as construction platforms rather than large replicators. We assume that replication is practical for relatively small items, but that energy costs would be prohibitive for routine replication of larger objects. (John Singer points out that if you could make a starship at the push of a button, you wouldn't need to....)

Why wouldn't you need to? Because someone else would have beaten you to it and wiped you out, that's why! [Frown]

Well, hope that helps. I can certainly say that this thread and the other one pointed out to me by Ritten have both been extremely helpful in my research - cheers!
[Big Grin]

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

If you think about it, Shelby said that they could get the 40-50 ships built by the end of the year. That means that in ADDITION to the ships being built during that time annally, 40-50 more ships will be built to replace those that were destroyed. So if the production per year was lets say 60 ships, then 40-50 ships would be added to that. Makes sense right?

I mean if you think about it, ship building does not stop and wait until a ship is destroyed then replace it. No, ships are constantly built for the modern ones to replace either modern ships that need a minor refit, or a old ship that needs a majr refit or to be decommissioned.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I don't recall her saying that that was in addition to, just that they could be built.....
40 or so ships may be a mid-level building rate per year... with, say, half that as a base average....
so, a wartime building effort, double crews and around the clock work, could double or triple her numbers.....

Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :

quote:
Why wouldn't you need to? Because someone else would have beaten you to it and wiped you out, that's why

i actually take it to mean "you wouldn't need to because if you had the ability to make a whole starship materialize just like *that*, you wouldn't need a ship to do such mundane things as zoom around the galaxy. hell, if you have that kind of technology, it's doubtful that you would even be on this plane of existance any longer.".

--jacob

Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
The first Galaxy Class ship was launched in 2358, although it was moving
only on thrusters.

Actually, it's the E-D that was launched in 2358. The Galaxy herself was launched on thrusters in 2356.

The curious thing about the timeline in the TM is that the Galaxy went from launch to commissioning in one year, while the Enterprise took five years to do the same. Why the difference?

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

while the Galaxy project took decades to come to fruition, i can imagine other starships that are on their subsequent construction runs take much less time.. for example, im sure they have Mirandas down to a science by the time they were constructing the third series or so, and could maybe put one together in a year or two. If a new class is made from components that already exist (off-the-shelf) it probably even eliminates the wait for parts (for example, the first ship of the Shelley-class mightnt even had to wait long since they just had to take the commonly built Excelsior series aucer and retool it, rather than doing R&D on a new class that might take years to shake-down)

Posted by grb2 (Member # 787) on :

Well, I dont know if anyone has mentionede this yet, but I learned in government class that ships which took 18 months to build before WW2 were built in two WEEKS during the war. The production levels and the amount of resources and workers that went into building those ships meant they could be built so much faster. So, I bet that it would take those years to build starfleet vessels before the war, but the times went down to just weeks for the duration of the war.

BTW, someone mentioned that "starship every three days" figure. That doesnt necessarily mean that a TOTAL complete ship was built in three days...the shipyard probably had many different ships in many different phases of consturction, and there would be one of those ships finishing the final stage of consturction every three days. That actual construction time for one ship, however, couldve taken much longer.

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

I'm surprised that no one ever figured that out.

In war time, everything is accelerated, construction, enlistment, economy and so on.

Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Masao:
The Kaiser shipyard in Oakland, California, built the SS ROBERT E PEARY, from keel laying to launching, in 4 days 15 hours and 30 minutes. The PEARY was then outfitted, painted, taken on sea trials, the crew was trained and the vessel fully loaded with 10,000 tons of cargo. The PEARY sailed 7 days after the keel was laid.

Holy S***! [Eek!]

Wow.

But, just to bring this post on-topic . . . anyone able to make up a reason why Starfleet was evidently building entire Galaxy Class ships, as opposed to just building Stardrive sections and leaving the saucers for post-war? Granted, saucers give you space for troops, shuttles, and equipment, and those huge phaser arrays, but that's a whole-lotta-extra to build.

Maybe the GCS was used for ferrying fighters? [Confused]

[ April 14, 2002, 15:14: Message edited by: Guardian 2000 ]

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

Possibly - we've proven that even unmodified, a GCS saucer can easily pack in 24 or more Peregrine-class fighters into the main shuttlebay. Furthermore, a saucer has two more phaser strips, two additional impulse drives, and the fusion generators to power it all. It'd make sense to send them in with the saucers and key systems, and simply leaving out all the superfluous stuff as Sternbach has proposed. Riker strongly suggests that the saucer impulse engines give the ship overall more maneuverability - and those GCS we see in DS9 and Voyager indeed have them lit up almost constantly. Looks like using them has become a standard practice, and may even be necessary for standard ship operations.

Mark

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Kaiser applied mass-production methods to his shipyards. Subassemblies were build nearby, then lowered & welded into place, much like is done today. Furthermore, the use of welding instead of rivets was relatively new at the time & Kaiser was a pioneer in that regard. His yards worked 24/7 & he encouraged competition between yards.

And why do people assume starship yards don't work 24/7? I mean, take UP. It's orbiting a planet. Everyone's going to be awake at different times. It seems smarter to run continuously.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Depends on logistics, is everything replicatable, as far as tools go?? Does the maintenance section have their nessecary allotment of raw materials to make what is needed, or their alloted power to run the replicators.....

They may run 24/7....

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

What they can't replicate, they can build.

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

quote:
Riker strongly suggests that the saucer impulse engines give the ship overall more maneuverability - and those GCS we see in DS9 and Voyager indeed have them lit up almost constantly. Looks like using them has become a standard practice, and may even be necessary for standard ship operations.

Specifically, i remember the occasion Riker was concerned about separating the saucer for the loss of the fusion generator's output.. More likely than the maneuverability case, it seems possible the generators were always running, even while the engines were off.. they would supply normal power to the saucer's systems constantly, not just on the occasions where they actually fired up the engine ports..

[ April 14, 2002, 21:07: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
Specifically, i remember the occasion Riker was concerned about separating the saucer for the loss of the fusion generator's output..

Other way around. BoBW, Riker wanted to separate the saucer section, Picard shot him down because he wanted to keep the extra fusion power.

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

No, Shelby wanted to seperate the saucer. Riker nixxed the plan because he felt that the power generated by the engines could augment their power supply in the coming Borg battle. Shelby told Riker to stroke off and went straight to Picard, who sided with Riker. Eventually, Riker did agree to seperate the saucer as part of a tactic to retreive Picard from the Borg cube.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

mmmm, in BoBW the problem was Picard was trying to shoot Riker down, that is why Shelby was there.....

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

umm...
Shelby told Riker to plan to separate the saucer.
Riker said no.
Shelby went to Picard.
Picard said no.
Picard then said they should consider it though, and made some comments about Riker's career, and Shelby's talent, blah-blah blah, yakkity schmackity.

Who's actually watched the episode recently??

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

I have. Sig's right.

Mark

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

So in conclusion, it was decided that the saucer is better left on, then left off due to extra power. Though I am also surprised that the Glaxy class was not concieved to utilize those impulse engines in conjuction with the main engine to make the complete ship more manueverable. It had to be Riker who suggested it.

I wonder how much more manueverable the Galaxy class is with or without the use of the secondary impulse engines are.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

The total system needs to be considered, along with the mass of the ship, RCS, Impulse, and warp....

In Warp the Enginering hull should be more manueverable, but, since I am not a specialist in warp theory....

mmm, I am not an impulse specialist either, but....

If the E-hull doesn't have to feed power to the EPS for the Saucer section the the E-hull would have that extra power... Does the amount of power generated by the impulse system come close to the power from the M/AMR? If so, why bother with the M/AM???

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

You lost me. I have no clue what you're talking about.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

We got going on about the separation of church and state.... mmmmm, no, mmm, oh yeah
The Saucer and Engineering section on the E-D.....

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

I'm thinking that since the Borg like to cut into the engineering section so much in hopes of trying to knock the warp core offline, the fusion reactors becomes even more critical as a source of power.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Rabid Pikachu, you have me there..... I didn't consider that.....

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

When the ship is seperated, the engineering hull is far more manuverable than before. The saucer is a sitting duck, with just 2 phaser strips and impulse only. The teo together is not as maunverable as the engineering hull, but I think the secondary impulse engines make her at least somewhat comparable.

The fusion reactors just provide more energy to other weapons and shields in case of an emergency, if phasers are still connected to the warp engines and if those go down so do the phasers.

Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:

The fusion reactors just provide more energy to other weapons and shields in case of an emergency, if phasers are still connected to the warp engines and if those go down so do the phasers.

I would have to think it still relates to those fighters.

Sure, the power generation of the saucer might be helpful, but we know that there are goofy labs way in the back of the Enterprise for no apparent reason (the soliton-wave episode), and all the blueprints suggest that there is a computer core on one side engineering hull (behind the navigational deflector) with "ballast" on the other side.

Seems to me that removing the more useless labs, or simply using a big honkin' fusion reactor as ballast, would be more advantageous than carrying around a saucer section which doubles (or more) the ship's profile, shield envelope, mass, et cetera.

Granted, that idea presupposes that the Galaxies were in place as front line combat vessels . . . which, given what we've seen, would seem to be the case. It would make more sense to have the saucer, though, if Galaxies were less front-line and more fighter-carrier/assault cruiser/troop transport vessels.

One thing that occasionally escapes notice is the sheer size of the Galaxy saucer, compared to entire other starships. The outer hull materials of a Galaxy saucer could supply the outer hull needs of an entire Intrepid, Sabre, or perhaps even Akira Class. This ignores the material requirements for all the saucer's innards, from fusion reactors to computer cores.

Granted, big-ole whoop-ass mackdaddies are useful (witness the huge American battleships of WW2), especially given that the Dominion had several big-ole whoop-ass mackdaddies floating around later in the war. Nevertheless, it would seem that more streamlined whoop-ass mackdaddies (Sovereigns) would have been more feasible for front-line combat starship use.

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

Where do we get the idea that the Galaxy-class stardrive section is more maneuverable than the Galaxy-class starship in docked mode? To me, the opposite would seem to be true. The stardrive has one impulse engine and would need to depend a lot on its thrusters. Add the saucer section into the mix, and you have two additional engines that are in prime positions to add more thrust into turns than thrusters alone would allow. In addition, the saucer would bring its own thruster system which helps balance out the added mass of the saucer.

There have already been good ideas presented for carrying the saucer. It has a massive shuttlebay that could carry several fighters. Plus, if we are to believe the DS9 Tech Manual is right about large internal portions of the ship being empty, then the bay could have been temporarily expanded. The many fusion reactors housed in the saucer can greatly augment the ship's power output. Plus, the main phasers of the Galaxy-class starship (based on the sheer number of times we've seen those fired over the other arrays) are on the saucer. The array on the dorsal surface of the stardrive doesn't look like it has the degree of range that the saucer's arrays have. Other benefit of having the saucer, if I remember the TNG Tech Manual correctly, then the Galaxy-class starship generates its most efficent warp fields while both sections are docked together.

Then again, do these benefits outweigh the downside of having a larger surface for the enemy to shoot at? That's a tough call, and I'd have to say not really. You probably couldn't have an expanded shuttle area with just bays two and three considering the lack of room in the neck. However, there probably could be enough room to do mass convertions in the stardrive section for quarters, adding in more weapons systems, and adding in more fusion generators.

Posted by J (Member # 608) on :

Don't forget the saucer's aft torpedo launcher. TNG TM

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Though that's unusable in docked mode.

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

I wouldnt say unusable.. its perfectly usable.. they probably just decided its in their best interests not to use it while docked.

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

Eh. They didn't really need the battle bridge anyway. [Smile]

Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Where do we get the idea that the Galaxy-class stardrive section is more
maneuverable than the Galaxy-class starship in docked mode?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe from the fact that its impulse engine was designed to move 5 million metric tons of mass on its own, and with the saucer separated a wanking big part of that mass is missing?

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :

plus shedding half the vessels length and a third of its width significantly decreases the ships turning radius

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

In warp the field can be adjusted to fit the new shape, needing less power to push the decreased mass past the c threshold....

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

quote:
Gee, I dunno. Maybe from the fact that its impulse engine was designed to move 5 million metric tons of mass on its own, and with the saucer separated a wanking big part of that mass is missing?

Oh, god yes! Thank you for bringing the light to eyes, Woodside Kid! I mean, how foolish for me to make that statement and not back it up with anything! Oh wait, I did. [Roll Eyes]

CaptainMike: I think less length is lost overall in seperation than half. After all, the cobrahead that's cutout from the saucer extends 3/4 of the way from the aft edge of the saucer to the center. But I also think that we're underestimating the maneuverability of this ship. I think parallels could be drawn with the supercruise liners that are in service today. Many of them are extraordinarily massive, but are surprisingly agile since they were designed with extra thrusters, more powerful engines, and new engine refinements to compensate.

Ritten: That's actually a very good point. I think the TNG Tech Manual says that the computer already does this, but that engine efficiency still suffers to a degree since the saucer was designed to aid in slipping into warp drive.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

That is what I was thinking of, the field is shaped for the saucer to be the point to break the barrier, with the saucer gone the computers should be able to generate a sharper field, to slip in to warp better.....

My thoughts anyhow....

Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :

Sounds right to me. As soon as the saucer separates, the Chief Engineer in the Battle Section tells the computer: "Delete warp dynamic v1.0. Load warp dynamic v2.0".

And yes, with the enormous mass of the saucer removed, the center of mass comes closer to the center of the Battle Section (I'm not sure how much - would depend on the mass of the saucer, and remember, much of the mass of the ship is in the warp core/antimatter pods/nacelles. This is referred to as the 'moment arm' in classic Newtonian physics.

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

So if we get rid of the saucer, what do we have?

1. Better maneuverablity
2. Smaller target
3. Extra materials to build another ship

But if the saucer is built:

1. A stronger wapr field (designed to be like that)
2. Two long, powerful phaser arrays
3. Troop transport
4. Fighter space

That's it?

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :

Also extra room for scientific facilities, crew quarters, support facilities, sensors etc.

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

According to the TNGTM, the main impulse engine on the stardrive section provides more than sufficient power to accelerate the ship to about 0.75c, any more than that would likely require power from the saucer section. Considering normal operating speed is only around 0.25c, it seems that mass is not a big issue for the main impulse engine.

Of course, on their own, the separated saucer and stardrive sections could probably accelerate better and be more manuverable, it's just that their top impulse speed is reduced.

And then there's the bloody phaser thing...

"I'm hold them off with this pistol, while you runaway with the rifle." Yeah, sure.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Its like if you and a friend are in the woods and come across an angry bear.....
You don't need to out run the bear, just your friend.....

Then again, we would have seen a few more separations had the Warp section had had bigger guns....

Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :

Okay, Siegfried, let's look at your back-ups, shall we?

quote:
The stardrive has one impulse engine and
would need to depend a lot on its thrusters. Add the saucer section into
the mix, and you have two additional engines that are in prime positions
to add more thrust into turns than thrusters alone would allow. In
addition, the saucer would bring its own thruster system which helps
balance out the added mass of the saucer.

1) What other thrusters are we talking about here? Aside from the ones used in "Booby Trap", I don't recall the ship ever using another type of thruster.

2) If the saucer engines were so advantageous in maneuvers, why in 7 years of TNG were they only used when the saucer was separated? As far as I remember, the first time we ever saw the saucer engines used while a Galaxy-class was in one piece was during the Dominion war.

quote:

There have already been good ideas presented for carrying the saucer. It
has a massive shuttlebay that could carry several fighters. Plus, if we
are to believe the DS9 Tech Manual is right about large internal
portions of the ship being empty, then the bay could have been
temporarily expanded.

This may surprise you, Siegfried, but I actually don't have much of a problem with this part. Always assuming, of course, that Starfleet doesn't have ships designed for fighter support available at the time.

quote:
The many fusion reactors housed in the saucer can
greatly augment the ship's power output. Plus, the main phasers of the
Galaxy-class starship (based on the sheer number of times we've seen
those fired over the other arrays) are on the saucer. The array on the
dorsal surface of the stardrive doesn't look like it has the degree of
range that the saucer's arrays have.

1) Would the fusion reactors put out enough power to equal the savings earned by not having to drag around a million or so tons of unnecessary mass? And would those reactors even be there if the hull is largely empty?

2) The phaser array on the head of the secondary hull doesn't need the degree of range of the saucer array. A large part of that array is there to allow the ship access to areas blocked by its own hull. Get rid of the saucer, and the three arrays on the battle head can cover the area quite nicely.

quote:
Other benefit of having the saucer,
if I remember the TNG Tech Manual correctly, then the Galaxy-class
starship generates its most efficent warp fields while both sections are
docked together.

Granted. And in the long run, on a multi-year mission, the energy savings would add up. However, in the short term, I think it would make more sense to simply produce the stardrive section. Devoid of the need to move the extra mass of the saucer (in either flight mode) and to power the saucer's systems, the stardrive section could devote its entire energy output to combat (which is the whole point of the saucer separation in the first place). Besides, if the whole point of an accelerated production schedule is to churn out ships for the war effort, why waste time and materials on something that's not absolutely necessary?

[ April 17, 2002, 04:21: Message edited by: Woodside Kid ]

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

I guess there could be two kinds of histories behind the creation of the Galaxy class:

1) Starfleet decides it wants more families in space. It needs to protect the families. Comes up with the idea of an evacuation section. Engineers tell the easiest way to do that is to adapt the saucer. Design proceeds, through minimal modifications to an originally non-separating (or at least non-reattaching) model.

Lots of vital stuff is left unmodified or poorly modified, so the ship is a cripple when separated. Stardrive section is not a good warship due to too short phaser strips and too little impulse power, and requires the things left in the saucer. Starfleet admits the shortcomings when forced to, abandons separated flight mode during late TNG.

2) Starfleet decides it wants to try separation/reattaching, since this has recently become a possibility. Invents a rationale for this afterwards: saucer becomes evacuation section, the rest becomes battle section. Neither of the parts is really designed with the mission in mind, but rather built to the exacting requirements of the separation/reattaching thing. Those requirements in fact dictate that the battle section is no good in battle and the evacuation section is no good in evacuation. Starfleet admits error in late TNG, discontinues the separate evac and battle missions.

Both histories would explain why stardrive sections aren't built separately - they aren't practical starships, having been hobbled by political decisions. They are merely "the half of a split Galaxy that's less poor in battle", not warships superior to, say, an intact Galaxy or an Akira or an Excelsior.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

quote:
1) What other thrusters are we talking about here? Aside from the ones used in "Booby Trap", I don't recall the ship ever using another type of thruster.

There are four RCS thruster units on the edge of the saucer section. Those are the little yellow-brown rectangular things. Other than "Booby Trap," we've never seen a thruster fire period although we've heard orders for them several times.

quote:
2) If the saucer engines were so advantageous in maneuvers, why in 7 years of TNG were they only used when the saucer was separated? As far as I remember, the first time we ever saw the saucer engines used while a Galaxy-class was in one piece was during the Dominion war.

And that's the point. The Federation goes to war, and suddenly the Galaxy class starships are using all three sets of impulse engines. In wartime, the ship needs to be more maneuverable, so those engines were brought online. Hell, some of the Mirandas flew around with extra impulse engines, too.

quote:
1) Would the fusion reactors put out enough power to equal the savings earned by not having to drag around a million or so tons of unnecessary mass? And would those reactors even be there if the hull is largely empty?

Temporary decking could be laid in place to keep the components from rolling around. The Galaxy class is 5 million metric tons. About half that is in the saucer... when the ship is completely outfitted to the standards in the TNG Tech Manual. If the vast majority of the saucer is empty, it wouldn't be adding as much mass as you think. I think that the output does justify it.

quote:
2) The phaser array on the head of the secondary hull doesn't need the degree of range of the saucer array. A large part of that array is there to allow the ship access to areas blocked by its own hull. Get rid of the saucer, and the three arrays on the battle head can cover the area quite nicely.

Except for part of the area covered by the ventral saucer array. The large array on the stardrive's head is near the same orientation as the dorsal saucer array. The ventral stardrive array could compensate, but it's degree of range is severely limited due to its positioning.

quote:
Granted. And in the long run, on a multi-year mission, the energy savings would add up. However, in the short term, I think it would make more sense to simply produce the stardrive section. Devoid of the need to move the extra mass of the saucer (in either flight mode) and to power the saucer's systems, the stardrive section could devote its entire energy output to combat (which is the whole point of the saucer separation in the first place). Besides, if the whole point of an accelerated production schedule is to churn out ships for the war effort, why waste time and materials on something that's not absolutely necessary?

Which is why I ended my original post with the opinion that in spite of some incentives for having the saucer section attached to the ship, the reality is that I doubt the make the need for the saucer absolutely necessary.

[ April 17, 2002, 10:38: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

Hmm... As a matter of pure speculation, one wonders if later refits of the Galaxy could actually incorporate smaller nacelles that would deploy from the hull a la Prometheus, giving it limited warp capability. I'm a proponent of the notion that the Sovereign saucer would have a similar ability - it's simply too silly to leave a huge spacecraft full of people at the mercy of even the tiniest shuttles that have greater FTL power.

Mark

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Woodside Kid:
1) Would the fusion reactors put out enough power to equal the savings earned by not having to drag around a million or so tons of unnecessary mass? And would those reactors even be there if the hull is largely empty?

The main fusion reactors for the Saucer section are all part of the saucer's impulse drive. Believe me, I checked the blueprints, you'd think there'd be a lot more reactors placed around the saucer section, but there aren't. Not full sized ones anyways. As I said before, the main impulse engine on the stardrive section has no problem pushing the ship up to 0.75c, which is three times the normal operating speed. The power from the saucer's engines therefore can be completely devoted to other ship functions.

quote:

2) The phaser array on the head of the secondary hull doesn't need the degree of range of the saucer array. A large part of that array is there to allow the ship access to areas blocked by its own hull. Get rid of the saucer, and the three arrays on the battle head can cover the area quite nicely.

The Type-X phaser array depends heavily on the coupling effect to generate its full power, so the longer the strip, the more output. The saucer section actually has more than TWICE the phaser output of the entire stardrive section, plus enough juice from her reactors to run them for ~20min straight at full power. Plus, the single forward strip on the stardrive can at best engage only one opponent at a time with any sort of a respectable output, while a single phaser strip on the saucer can engage 4 or 5 enemies at once with more firepower.

Going into battle without the saucer section would be a distinct disadvantage.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

Mark, Peter David certainly believes so. He puts these pop-out nacelles onto the newest USS Excalibur, a Galaxy class vessel captained by his literary hero Mackenzie Calhoun. Now if he only hadn't insisted on one of those stupid suffix registries...

I guess warp coils could also be mounted internally if need be - the majority of alien starships seem to swear by this configuration. We could even assume that the saucers have always had internal warp engines. Perhaps that's what the blue glow at the aft rim of the saucer really is. What canonical references do we have to the theory that the saucer is limited to impulse speeds, anyway?

(Umm, "BoBW" might have some. But "Encounter at Farpoint" and things like "Arsenal of Freedom" would immediately become more logical if the saucer was indeed supposed to have warp drive.)

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

The TNG TM says that the saucer is capable of impulse only. Some episodes says this as well. However Data once at Farpoint, that if the ship is at warp, and seperates, the suacer can sustain wapr, just not capable of going to warp by herself.

Posted by J (Member # 608) on :

I can't see the Saucer going to warp by using the space-time drive coil from the Impulse engines... I think those things are too small to get it to warp. But like a torpedo, I think the saucer could possibly use the drive coil to sustain warp.

Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :

quote:
space-time drive coil

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

I have no clue what a space-time coil is. Maybe it is a warp coil?

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

mmmm, I think it is the accelerator coil that is being referred to..... I can't find my TM to verify......

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :

Maybe the subspace drive coils? They're suppose to lower the mass of a starship at impulse, and in case of warp flight, hold onto a hand-off warp field from the stardrive section long enough to decelerate safely back to sublight and not have the stardrive go crashing into it.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Then what in my memory is the accelerator coils.... or assembly....
or,
if my memory is failing help me reboot it.....

Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Templar:
Maybe the subspace drive coils? They're suppose to lower the mass of a starship at impulse, and in case of warp flight, hold onto a hand-off warp field from the stardrive section long enough to decelerate safely back to sublight and not have the stardrive go crashing into it.

Wow . . . I've never seen so much confusion over a missing R before.

Dude said "space-time drive coils" when he was referring to what, in the TM, is referred to as "space-time driver coils". And, as he indicated by the context, he was referring to the subspace thingies in the impulse drive.

Now, back to the point, I doubt seriously that those would allow sustained warp to any significant degree. A torpedo's warp sustainer is a large piece of equipment, at least compared to the torpedo. Using the space-time driver coils for sustaining a warp field . . . or even trying to maintain control of the saucer while dropping out of warp . . . would be like trying to use a knat's fart to guide a battleship.

Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :

hmmm

quote:
use a knat's fart to guide a battleship.

well i'd completely understand if it were a GNAT! [Razz]

Buzz

Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :

I'm surprised that nobody has suggested that during the war they should/could make special wartime sections to "snap-on" to the stardrive. Could add all sorts of nifty-keeno-tech bits.

Of course I'm often surprised - it is sort of fun.

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

In the non-canon Dominion War novelizations, they jury-rigged the Defiant to rapid-fire hundreds of quantum torpedoes for that one mission where "Captain" Dax was assigned to blow up that sensor array...

Plus, in "The Jem'Hadar" they discussed adding extra banks of photons to the Runabouts. So we know that where possible, they probably do reftrofit ships with extra stuff. I'm assumming we're talking more about things like pods for the Nebula, strapping phaser banks to the top of Galaxy nacelles, etc.

Mark

[ April 22, 2002, 11:44: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]