RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,575
Posts: 5,423,571
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 418
Newest member: toaster

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Coto Drama Sold To Fox
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Braga Inks Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Remastered Original Series Re-release
By: T'Bonz on Sep 11

UK Trek Ships Calendar Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Sep 10


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 9 2014, 12:30 PM   #16
Bry_Sinclair
Commodore
 
Bry_Sinclair's Avatar
 
Location: Along the border of Talarian space
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
The Nebula has a much crappier-looking bridge than the Galaxy-class (is "Redemption" the only time we've seen one?)
We saw another on the DS9 episode Sisko falls for the mental projection of an alien woman married to an old terraformer--can't remember what its called.

The "Redemption" bridge could have been a temporary facility set up when the ship was pushed into service.

I actually prefer the Nebula- to the Galaxy-Class. I like the more compact look of the ship, she seems to be multifunctional in my eyes anyway.
__________________
Avatar: Captain Susanna Leijten, U.S.S. Silverfin NCC-4470, Border Service Third Cutter Squadron
Manip by: FltCpt. Bossco (STPMA)
Bry_Sinclair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2014, 04:23 PM   #17
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
The Nebula has a much crappier-looking bridge than the Galaxy-class (is "Redemption" the only time we've seen one?)
We see the Prometheus' bridge in DS9's "Second Sight", but it's not much better. I could've sworn we've seen one that was basically a copy of the Galaxy's, but I could be wrong.
__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2014, 06:44 PM   #18
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

B.J. wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
The Nebula has a much crappier-looking bridge than the Galaxy-class (is "Redemption" the only time we've seen one?)
We see the Prometheus' bridge in DS9's "Second Sight", but it's not much better. I could've sworn we've seen one that was basically a copy of the Galaxy's, but I could be wrong.
It's a redress of the Battle Bridge set that was earlier used to represent the bridge of the Saratoga. The same set with almost the same set dressings was later used for the bridge of the Odyssey in "The Jem'Hadar" and later still used as the bridge of the Romulan Warbird in "The Die is Cast"
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2014, 07:12 PM   #19
Mark_Nguyen
Commodore
 
Mark_Nguyen's Avatar
 
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

There was also the Freighter Norkova. Actually this DS9 "guest" ship set was a new-build and only shared certain components from the TNG Battle Bridge set seen in BOBW et al.; it actually takes a fair amount from the Excelsior bridge components built for The Undiscovered Country. The DS9 set was apparently left standing in a corner of its sound stage for the first two seasons of that show (Emissary through Jem'Hadar) and guested as most starship bridges during that time, plus the Romulan bridge. It was stricken to make room for more Defiant sets.

Back to the Nebula, I've always seen it as a more standard starship design than the Galaxy, which was a deliberate attempt at looking and feeling big and open and hotel-ish. What corridors and bridges and sets we've seen tend to support more cramped spaces compared to a Galaxy, and utilitarian. Notably, the Prometheus' guest quarters had doors set into a portal and bunk beds (it was borrowed from the aft Runabout set built for TNG "Timescape") and the brig set seen on the Honshu was pretty cramped too (borrowing Voyager's brig and the Defiant's corridor sets).

However, I actually think that these two examples could even be up in the mission pod, meaning that the rest of the ship could very well be spacious and grand, while areas customized for crazy terraformers or crazier war criminals could be in a pod meant specifically for that purpose. It still leaves the utilitarian bridge on the Prometheus at least, but it's still more TNG than many. Besides, all models of the Nebula share the Galaxy's bridge module exterior, which on the Enterprise corresponded closely to the actual bridge set within...

Mark
__________________
Mark Nguyen - Producer
The 404s - Improv Comedy Group

Oh, I like that Trek thing too...
Mark_Nguyen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11 2014, 06:36 PM   #20
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

Despite many similar hull components with the Galaxy, I envisioned the Nebula-class to have some substantially different interior arrangements. Whereas the Galaxy was designed with long-term space exploration of the Federation's frontiers in mind, with a duration of several years between necessary resupply, it would seem to me that the Nebula was designed to provide defensive and exploratory services largely within the boundaries of the Federation itself. Of course, it would have complete capabilities to serve in a wider galactic exploratory role as the Galaxy does, but I don't see that as the primary intended role of the Nebula.

Unless there's other variants of the mission pod that I haven't seen, I am thinking that there are two separate versions of the Nebula...the triangular pod, denoting a dedicated combat version (henceforth, Combat-Nebula), and the oval pod, indicating a dedicated explorer and science version (Sensor-Nebula). Mission pods are interchangeable between the two variants, of course, but the internal fittings of each ship make the best match when fitted with its intended pod type. Since we've seen many more triangular pod-equipped Nebulas than oval pod ones, I tend to think there are significantly many more Combat-Nebulas in service than Sensor-Nebulas, and I don't think we've ever seen a Sensor-Nebula engaged in combat outside of TNG's "The Wounded". And since both Nebula designs have separate primary functions as I see it, it stands to reason that the interiors of the ships have been constructed to more fully support those specific missions, and of substantially shorter intended duration than the Galaxy, as opposed to the spacious quarters and family-friendly multiple amenities and catch-alls of a multi-year explorer. Out go things like the Arboretum and a mega-sized shuttle bay (at least in the earlier versions; it would appear that the Bonchune CGI has one) and multiple impulse engines for saucer separation (as well as all of the volume-consuming apparatus involved with a now-unnecessary saucer sep capability, like docking latches and overlapping structural integrity field generators); in go items like more torpedo magazines, phaser strip crystal fabrication facilities, troop quarters for a wartime footing, and more sizable cargo bays. The capacious primary hull of a Nebula of either type would have plenty of room to ferry citizens, colony settlers, and cargo across the length and breadth of the Federation with great economy as Nebulas go about their concerns, especially if the hull did not have to have multiple science labs and sensor emplacements and support of same like the Galaxy does. Additionally, a less specialized primary hull with more cargo space and less "busy" than a Galaxy's requirements would be easier, faster, and cheaper to fabricate, and might serve as an in-universe explanation for the lack of window rows and other visual differences from the Galaxy-class as seen on early Nebulas.

If the Galaxy is a "let's see what's out there" ship, the Nebula is a "now that we know what's out there, here's the ship to deal with it most efficiently" ship.

Combat-Nebulas, I perceive, take advantage of their less-than-Galaxy size to create a smaller, stronger shield envelope than a Galaxy would have from the same sized warp core, and hence would likely be able to stand up to stronger punishment than a Galaxy against the same foe. A dedicated mission pod with multiple torpedo launchers (and there's plenty of room in the pod for a dozen launchers and thousands of photon torpedoes) would be complemented by additional torpedo magazines and other combat-support facilities within the primary and engineering hulls, as stated above. Combat-Nebulas on patrol at key trouble spots within a few weeks or months of the nearest Starbase could, in principle, remain at the ready nearly indefinitely, being relieved by another Combat-Nebula as is needed to return to a Starbase for resupply, crew rest/replacement, and other things. Additionally, a high cargo/passenger capacity would be of great value moving things around within the Federation, along with the defensive capabilities to protect them.

Sensor-Nebulas, though few in number, could be sent on missions of longer duration (though not as long as the intended duration of the Galaxy-class) to places of scientific interest within the Federation (and outside it, with sufficient tactical back-up...). Places like the Dyson Sphere and other anomalies that require more scrutiny that might be outside the capabilities of Oberth- and Nova-class explorer and science ships, or places that a more widely-ranging Galaxy-class might discover and then move along once a Sensor-Nebula shows up or is enroute to the new discovery. Dedicated science labs and analysis facilities would take up excess space used for other functions in the Galaxy-class, though things like the Arboretum and a large (or even expanded, into the interior of the primary hull...) shuttle bay may be retained. Sensor-Nebula also retains capable offensive systems, though not as expansive as that of a Combat-Nebula, making it a better choice than an Oberth- or Nova-class for in-depth scrutiny missions outside Federation space or close to known threats; in that vein, I can certainly see a Sensor-Nebula testing new stuff in the proximity of the Romulan Neutral Zone, for example. Likewise the Combat-Nebula, large passenger facilities and cargo bays may make the Sensor-Nebula a busy enough workhorse for the needs of the Federation when mysteries to be studied are few and far between.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12 2014, 12:44 AM   #21
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

I do have a couple of questions about the Nebula, though.

(1) Given the 440m length of the Nebula-class, what are the dimensions of both pods?

(2) Is there a forward torpedo tube in the engineering hull right above the main deflector dish? I remember a Nebula in "Star Trek:First Contact" firing on a Borg cube thusly, but I don't know if there's enough room between the bottom of the primary hull and the top of the main deflector dish for a torpedo tube.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12 2014, 01:19 AM   #22
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

1/ I don't recall the exact volume of the pods, but they're actually not all that large.

2. This is one of those VFX oddities I think we should put up there with a phaser coming out of the Galaxy class torpedo launcher. Since the connecting area between the saucer and engineering hull doesn't really have a location fit for a torpedo launcher, and so far as I can tell the First Contact Nebula is actually the physical model version (rather than the CGI one), it looks like a VFX blunder to me. (Note this is true of most of that battle scene, since there's weird scaling issues with the Sabre class, and the Akira fires torpedoes from where it doesn't actually have any launchers.)
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12 2014, 01:23 AM   #23
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

On the rest of your theory, Sic, I think part of it is simply that the Nebula while sharing many of the same structural frames of the Galaxy clearly seem to be using inferior internal components. It might be akin to building with merely cutting edge technology vs. with bleeding edge technology and as a result having to use more of the internal volume in efficient ways compared to the Galaxy. Throughout TNG's run, we kind of got the impression that a lot of Galaxy class systems were somewhat over complicated or untested, up to and including the warp core. It may simply be that as a "workhorse" design, the Nebula is designed with less of the flash bang, and thus doesn't have as much internal volume to use, and thus had to make use of things like external pods.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12 2014, 02:02 AM   #24
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

The pods look like they have more volume than an Oberth in its entirety. Perhaps even a Nova-class. But do we know their dimensions?

We'll chalk the torpedo tube scene up to VFX blunders, then. Canon purists can argue differently, but I don't see space for one.

What is wrong with the Saber scaling? How big is it supposed to be?

I thought I had read a blurb in the TNG Tech Manual regarding the internal volume of the Galaxy primary hull was something like 35% free space? If so, there should still be plenty of room for extras even in the Nebula, I would think. Earlier, less gee-whiz components than the Galaxy, yes; inferior components, no. And being the next newest design down from the then state-of-the-art Galaxy, I would think Starfleet would work diligently at correcting any such flaws, especially if they're the workhorses of the fleet.

Do we know from episodes or Trek lit if the Nebula has saucer separation capability? I am inclined to think it doesn't...rather, certainly it has an emergency separation function, but I don't think it has an easy disconnect/reconnect like the Galaxy does.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12 2014, 02:33 AM   #25
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

Well, as noted above, the Galaxy has about 30% more internal volume over the Nebula pod included. So basically a Nebula that has been fully fitted out would have about the same payload volume as a standard 35% volume empty Galaxy. The pod's are about 170m x 280m x 20m. Lazily assuming they're triangular gives us a volume of about 476,000 m³. Which is big. It's about 2 Mirandas, or half an Excelsior.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13 2014, 04:02 AM   #26
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

Galaxy has 30% more internal volume than Nebula, pod included? All due respect, but that figure seems to me to be a bit off, at first glance. I know the engineering hull is shorter than that of Galaxy, but it doesn't seem THAT much shorter. And most of the part that seems to be missing on the Nebula but exists on the Galaxy appears to be the wide, flat parts that support the nacelles as well as the flaring part of the neck that, while sizable, doesn't seem to me to make up the 30%. Also, Nebula's pod, while not very tall, is still pretty damned big and the pod supporting strut (at least on the tac pod variants...have never gotten a close look at the sensor pod supports of the Phoenix-type variant), and those two structures (pod and support pylon) would, I think, go a long way in making up a volume shortage vis-a-vis Galaxy.

The Starship Spotter book of 2001 mentions that Nebula has a cargo pod and a probe pod in addition to a tactical pod and sensor pod...have we seen any of those variants? I am also thinking that such pods can't be too much taller than the tactical and sensor versions, or else they'd interfere with the ship's warp bubble.

(Starship Spotter gives 3,309,000 tons displacement for Nebula and 4,500,000 tons for Galaxy, making Nebula 73.53% the volume of Galaxy...nonetheless, given those stats, looking at side/top/bottom/front/back views of both types, I still don't see THAT significant of a volume difference. What am I doing wrong?)
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14 2014, 12:59 AM   #27
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

It just came to my attention that the Nebula Class and the several other ships at Wolf 359 couldn't take down a cube while the Galaxy Class alone finished the job.
bbjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14 2014, 01:45 AM   #28
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

bbjeg wrote: View Post
It just came to my attention that the Nebula Class and the several other ships at Wolf 359 couldn't take down a cube while the Galaxy Class alone finished the job.
You mean Picard and Data finished the job by hacking the Borg, all the Enterprise did is provide equipment for the hacking and prepare for a likely to be ineffective suicide run.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14 2014, 08:56 AM   #29
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
bbjeg wrote: View Post
It just came to my attention that the Nebula Class and the several other ships at Wolf 359 couldn't take down a cube while the Galaxy Class alone finished the job.
You mean Picard and Data finished the job by hacking the Borg, all the Enterprise did is provide equipment for the hacking and prepare for a likely to be ineffective suicide run.
True it was more the crew than the ship on that one but the Nebula Class couldn't have pulled off that saucer separation diversionary tactic on it's own.
bbjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15 2014, 09:22 PM   #30
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

bbjeg wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
bbjeg wrote: View Post
It just came to my attention that the Nebula Class and the several other ships at Wolf 359 couldn't take down a cube while the Galaxy Class alone finished the job.
You mean Picard and Data finished the job by hacking the Borg, all the Enterprise did is provide equipment for the hacking and prepare for a likely to be ineffective suicide run.
True it was more the crew than the ship on that one but the Nebula Class couldn't have pulled off that saucer separation diversionary tactic on it's own.
A Nebula and an Ambassador could have if the Enterprise crew had been on one of them.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.