...the Galaxy or the Nebula? The Nebula-Class could have come first, as a test ship for some of the technology and design elements used in the Galaxy-Class. But then the Nebula could have come after the Galaxy as a 'cheaper' alternative.
Just as it was "in realty," I assume that the Nebula was a "spin off" of the Galaxy class project, which the TNG tech manual suggests was a very lengthy project, so ships of both classes might've been coming off the assembly line at more or less the same time, despite the Nebula class project being started, say, 10 or more years after the Galaxy class project started.
The nebula condensed into the galaxy. But seriously folks, I imagine the Galaxy came first, then the idea for the spinoff, compact version came later.
It really isn't that much more compact though - the only thing different from a Galaxy is the dorsal section. You'd save practically nothing in terms of construction, the humongous saucer is still there. So, what is the point of the Nebula design exactly?
That's so true with many of the kitbash variety of ships (maybe not so much with the Galaxy/Nebula). When a new vessel is simply a re-arrangement of saucer and nacelles and such, what is the point? And yeah, I know a few kitbashes are really kewl and I do like 'em, but in-universe, they seem to be the same as some other existing ship. So why? Oh yeah... my vote is for Nebula after the Galaxy. No particular reason, I suppose, no facts to back my decision. However... in early TNG Picard speaks a few times with awe about this wonderous new Galaxy class ship. Why would he feel that way if it is essentially cobbled together from a pre-existing Nebula style ship?
To supplement the Galaxy-class, IMO. There have been different versions of the dorsal pod on the Nebula-class (some have been triangular, while others have been circular) which could represent different functions--one version of the pod could be a weapons platform while another could be a sensor platform. This could enable the Nebula-class to perhaps serve as a more specific-mission version of the more multi-mission Galaxy-class maybe. As to the OP, I've favored an idea that the two designs were started simultaneously, but the Nebula-class entered service earlier. Lessons learned from the Nebula-class were incorporated into the Galaxy-class, enabling the latter to be a more refined design in the end.
Of course, all this begs the question about all the other Galaxy kitbashes, like the New Orleans, Freedom, Cheyenne, Springfield, and Niagara classes. Their components may not be the same scale as the Galaxy, but they share similar features.
When I did a USS Nebula kitbash many years ago, I found that the (conjectural?) registry numbers of many "other" Nebula class ships were earlier than that of the USS Galaxy and most of her class. From Memory Alpha: Named Galaxy Class Ships- USS Challenger (NCC-71099) USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) USS Galaxy (prototype, NCC-70637) USS Odyssey (NCC-71832) USS Venture (NCC-71854) USS Yamato (NCC-71807) Named Nebulas Class Ships- USS Bellerophon (NCC-62048) USS Bonchune (NCC-70915) USS Farragut (NCC-60597) USS Honshu (NCC-60205) USS Leeds (NCC-70352) USS Lexington USS Merrimac (NCC-61827) USS Monitor (NCC-61826) USS Phoenix (NCC-65420) USS Prometheus (NCC-71201) USS Sutherland (NCC-72015) USS T'Kumbra I always saw the Nebula to Galaxy as akin to Miranda to Constitution. Different needs meant different configuration. So maybe they had no consideration as to registry numbers having that kind of meaning.
The Nebula came first in regards to registry numbers. I like to think of the Galaxy/Nebula as being a joint project of sorts. The Galaxy was the luxury ship while the Nebula was the workhorse. The Galaxy had EVERYTHING while the Nebula was built with less but more customizable with the mission pod. This allowed the Nebula to be the first off the production line. The Nebula probably also, initially, used older technology while the Galaxy was given state of the art everything. One thing that always amused me was the Nebula class bridges being hilariously pathetic when compared to the Galaxy. You'd think both bridges would be similar.
Bridge modules may vary not only from design to design but also between ships of the same design. Both the Prometheus (pre-VOY) and the Sutherland had very different bridge layouts, even though they were both Nebula-class. While neither bridge were as big as the Enterprise's, both still seemed to have aft hallways that led to other areas on deck one.
To be sure, the Sutherland was said to be in the middle of repairs, with several decks actually uninhabitable. What we saw need not have been the primary or even the secondary bridge - we could have been watching a circuit breaker room with the capacity of acting as the bridge if the seven better alternatives were all unavailable. Since so many ships seem to have counterparts with simply the nacelles flipped (and sometimes the secondary hull removed, but not always), it would seem logical to assume that it makes a world of difference in warp performance whether the nacelles are hugging close to the saucer or rigged farther out (the up/down issue would no doubt be secondary to the mounting distance). One configuration is better at something (say, top speed) the other at something else (say, cruise economy). Timo Saloniemi
Makes sense. I always thought that the Sutherland's bridge was awful, not to mention impractical for a ship of its size. Perhaps both classes were started at the same time, and with the Nebula being slightly smaller and possibly faster to build it was finished first, hence the lower registry numbers? Just a thought.
Is it possible the Sutherland bridge was not the actual bridge but the temporary version of one? Sort of like a battle-bridge on the Galaxy class. Apart from that... either design could have been made prior to one other. For that matter, there is an obvious difference between the designs that might demonstrate why both are needed. The Nebula class can be turned into a mission specific vessel thanks to its pod option. The Galaxy class cannot.
^ I don't think the showrunners put any thought into how different the bridge of the Sutherland looked from the Enterprise. Did they show the bridge of the Phoenix? It seems like they went to the trouble of making all bridges look different though.
Not quite accurate. There was actually no mention of any uninhabitable decks aboard the Sutherland when she was launched to join Picard's fleet. But shortly after Data assumed command, a power coupling overload caused a brief radiation leak on three decks that was stopped by taking the weapons offline.
True enough. But as this condition, resulting from fairly routine operations rather than battle damage, eventually did force the evacuation of several decks, it wouldn't be too out of the line to speculate that the crew already had to avoid using certain functions and spaces when leaving port; having Main Bridge be one of these would then explain the use of this facility that seemed to lack classic things such as viewscreen or helm console. As for the Prometheus, the plot has our very small and low-ranking band of heroes play a major role in running the ship. This would be consistent with a small bridge where the top officer wears Lt (jg) pips; the use of the Nebula class exterior is the inconsistent thing here. We could always speculate that the ship did have a large and high-ranking crew appropriate for a Nebula, and that the absence of high-rankers was due to the authoritarian way the terraformer Seyetlik ran the ship; he himself may have held the rank of Captain, but would refuse to wear the uniform... And the only people with the guts to oppose him would indeed be doing so, off camera (just imagine the XO, of full Commander rank, lying stunned on a corridor just outside the shuttlebay, with the LtCmdr Second Officer hyposprayed to unconsciousness at the Sickbay right next to the CMO) while Sisko interacted with the Lieutenant on the bridge. Perhaps the special terraforming mission and Seyetlik's antics also meant the regular crew was not given access to Main Bridge, the nerve center of Seyetlik's experiments, and had to conduct everyday operations from the secondary bridge? Timo Saloniemi