Flare Sci-Fi Forums: The Enterprise is really the USS Galaxy ...

This is topic The Enterprise is really the USS Galaxy ... in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1049.html

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, it is in Yesterday's Enterprise, anyway. Watched the episode today, and when Yar and Castille leave 10-Forward, Tasha is telling him about the ship's weapons, troop carrying ability ... and that she was the first of the Galaxy-Class starships.

I guess Starfleet decided to rename the USS Galaxy as the Enterprise for whatever reason. Unless I'm wrong, in "our" universe, the Galaxy and the Yamato were both launched prior to the Enterprise.

(Mind you, I'm not saying that "our" Enterprise-D was really the Galaxy, but in the alt-universe of "Yesterday's Enterprise", the Enterprise was the Galaxy.)

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
****
"The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families."
--Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :

I think the alternate Tasha said the E-D was the first Galaxy class ship built as a warship. The alternate Galaxy and Yamato could have been built as exploratory ships. Of course that wouldn't make sense since the alternate Riker said they were in need of ships.

------------------
[Bart's looking for his dog.]
Groundskeeper Willy: Yeah, I bought your mutt - and I 'ate 'im! [Bart gasps.] I 'ate 'is little face, I 'ate 'is guts, and I 'ate the way 'e's always barkin'! So I gave 'im to the church.
Bart: Ohhh, I see... you HATE him, so you gave him to the church.
Groundskeeper Willy: Aye. I also 'ate the mess he left on me rug. [Bart stares.] Ya heard me!

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Galaxy and Yamato may have been destroyed near completation at an attack on Utopia Planitia, and therefore they didn't feel like changing the class name.

------------------
"No, 3 & 6 are mandatory, so you only have to do them if you want"

Alex, fellow classmate, trying to explain an assignment (2/2/01)

Posted by Gammera on :

Ya know, in the modren navy it isn't all that uncommon for the lead ship of the class to be launched after the second or third ship started, I am very fermilar with one case, the USS Ohio SSBN-726, and USS Michigan SSBN-727, both are Ohio class submarines, because the lead ship, Ohio was projected to launch after the Michigan, they simply swapped names and numbers, so that the Ohio would launch first. This switching doesn't always happen though so it is concevible that, despite what it says in the NG techmanual that Enterprise did launch before the Galaxy did.

[This message has been edited by Gammera (edited February 23, 2001).]

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

It's possible Tasha meant that the Enterprise was the first production Galaxy-class ship built. Meaning that she was the first one after the USS Galaxy prototype.

In fact, there's nothing in canon that contradicts that this isn't true for the normal universe too. All it takes is for one to ignore the TNG Tech Manual.

Now that I think about it, it's possible that all the Enterprise's were the first production vessel built of their respective classes. Except for the Ent-A of course.

------------------
"Life's too short to be pissed off all the time." (Danny Vinyard, American History X)
Dax's Ships of Star Trek

Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :

I noticed that little blurb too and it always sort of bothered me. But these are good explanations. No doubt, with the war going on, the production history of the Galaxy class varied quite a bit from our reality.

Though "The Nitpicker's Guide to Star Trek TNG" brought up the very good point that, with the war on, the senior staff would not still be together, and the Galaxy Class would probably look alot more like the Defiant.

------------------
"You don't tug on Superman's cape.
You don't spit into the wind.
You don't pull the mask off the ole' Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim."
Aban's Illustration www.alanfore.com

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Maybe she meant "one of the first?"

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I just thought it was an interesting tidbit

My own theory is that the Class remained the Galaxy, and that the Galaxy was renamed the Enterprise to boost spirits.

And she clearly said that the Enterprise was the first of her class.

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Maybe in the alternate timeline - the E-D isn't a Galaxy class starship...

------------------
"This is cooling, faster than I can..." Tori Amos "Cooling"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

That might work.

Except ...

Yar: "She was the first Galaxy-Class warship built by the Federation. 42 decks, capable of transporting 4,000 troops.

Castille: "How long have you been onboard?"

Yar: "Four years. Straight out of the Academy. I was lucky to get the Enterprise."

Castille: "Me too. I mean, my Enterprise."

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

I would they need a ship that large? If you needed a ship to cawrry troops and have massive fire power, it could be smaller perhaps the size of the Excelsior or Ambassador classes. 5,000,000 million tons of ship is too much for just a heavily armed troop carrier. I bet Starfleet could have won it if they built smaller ships like the Sabre and perhaps a alternate version of the Defiant in some form of another.

------------------
Predict the unpredictable, but how do you unpredict the unpredictable?

Posted by warbird5 on :

Just 4000 troops? Seems kinda low for me

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

Well, I betcha that 4000 troops is what she could carry comfortably, with full gear and support systems, without having to sit in a drydock being modified for it. I believe the TNG manual estimates the E-D could transport 15,000 people at a time if need be.

Mark

------------------
"Why build one, when you can have two at twice the price?"

- Carl Sagan, "Contact"

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

For a ship that is about 8 times larger than the E-A, that seems a little small. The aricraft carrier Enterprise I think can hold up to 5,000 people average. Though I think now it is 3,000, that and 80 planes and parts. So assuming that, I would take a guess of about 20,000-30,000 people if stacked in bunks and personal belongings to a minium.

------------------
Predict the unpredictable, but how do you unpredict the unpredictable?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, but if you think that the alternate Enterprise might also carry large training areas for phaser practice, etc (really super big holodecks), a much larger sickbay to handle casualties, drop ships, and a LOT more transporter rooms ...

The crew complement might also be quite a bit larger. Ten-Forward was PACKED. The corridors were PACKED. Every room aboard the ship was PACKED with people.

"Our" Enterprise-D has a crew of ... what? 600? With 400 some civilians or whatnot aboard?

"That" Enterprise-D could have a crew of twenty-five hundred or so.

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

Has the E-D ever had a starfleet / civilian ratio established? 600 / 400 doesn't sound bad, but we rarely saw that kind of ratio of people walking around in the corridors (assuming that no civilians wore Starfleet uniforms or variations thereof). If we follow the observed numbers of people walking around in the corrodors, a 9:1 ratio may be more appropriate.

Also, while we can assume that the Enterprise was built for families, we never really saw many kids around. In fact, if "Rascals" is any indication, the number of pre-pubescent kids could only number a dozen or so, and the pre-adults not much more than that - the only time we really see crew in the 12-18 bracket is "Coming of Age", I think.

And I further believe that crew slots for specialists on the flagship would be reserved more for Starfleet crew and inviteds - of the civilians we have seen, there's Keiko (a botanist), the kids' teachers, and at least one of Geordi's failed love interests ("Transfigurations", I think). There are others, but they're pretty few and far between. I think that Starfleet has the capacity for large groups of cililians, but prefers to do the big work in-house.

Mark

------------------
"Why build one, when you can have two at twice the price?"

- Carl Sagan, "Contact"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, other eps showed lots of civilians. I think its safe to say we RARELY saw scenes in the "civilian" sections of the ship. I might point out that we saw a lot more civilians in the first season, and quite a good deal in Generations as well.

And we saw civilians in every scene in Ten-Forward, unless you think those bartenders are actually Starfleet officers.

And, hey, don't forget "Captain Picard Day" ... (what ep was that?)

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :

Granted, I forgot about the bartenders, but I tended to block those hideous green jumpsuits they wore out of my memory. :P But to be fair, the waiters and bartenders seen in ST III wore spiffy black variations on the usual enlisted jumpsuits IIRC.

And I forgot about that 1st season episode where *all* the children were abducted (probably because it was so.. forgettable), but in THAT episode there were even fewer kids than in "Rascals" (and they took everyone from birth to 15 years old, which was Wesley's age at the time).

And in "Generations", we see not only more civilians, but more of EVERYONE, reflecting the movie budget and the need to direct the attention away form the less-detailed TV sets. However, one factor we're not accounting for is the off-duty Starfleeters wearing civilian clothes - which they often did, and moreso on the E-D than on (say) DS9 or Voyager.

I would argue that these bits of evidence don't change my position much. Admittedly, there *could* be lots of civilian areas lying around that we just don't see, but there's little supporting evidence to it as we are centered around our Starfleet heroes. Futhermore, the TNG manual and the (questionable) blueprints don't really emphasize the civilian aspects of life aboard ship.

Mark

------------------
"Why build one, when you can have two at twice the price?"

- Carl Sagan, "Contact"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, also, Alexander, Picard, Ro and Guinan and Keiko were in one classroom. Presumably, there are a couple of such classroom complexes aboard the ship, so just because we didn't see the other kids doesn't mean they weren't aboard.

Posted by Re'k on :

quote:
And we saw civilians in every scene in Ten-Forward, unless you think those bartenders are actually Starfleet officers.

On the ship we're using in our ST RPG, the Intrepid-class USS Valiant-C, the lounge is an "off duty zone". Check your pips at the door. It's a little more extremely off duty than the fabled Ten Forward... people actually frown when you mention rank in the Valiant's lounge... but it could be that a lot of the "civilians" we see in 10-Fwd are actually just off duty crewmembers.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I sorta doubt that.

I'd imagine they're either the spouses of Enterprise crewmembers, civilians recruited from Starfleet to serve as bartenders (the fact that Guinan is aboard is a good point in favor of this theory), or possibly off-duty crewmembers (although I doubt that).