posted
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
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
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.
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
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
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
quote:Originally posted by The Shadow: Can't they just replicate ships?
Thank's Ritten for pointing me towards this 3 year old thread.
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!
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!
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
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.".
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?
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
