RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,092
Posts: 5,399,382
Members: 24,736
Currently online: 525
Newest member: Jamestown

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

City on the Edge of Forever #3 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

TV Alert: Shatner TNG Documentary
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22


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 17 2014, 12:24 AM   #31
Pippin209
Ensign
 
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

From 20 mins of looking at pics and stats it seams that the nebula was designed to be more efficient and use more tried and tested tech than the galaxy. That coupled with the compact interiors and variability of the pods make it ideally suited to a fast reaction ship, capable of been sent on any kind of mission be it combat, humanitarian or scientific anywhere in sf controlled space. it seams to be a good ship with a nice service record standing against the Borg Cardassians Klingon and any others (if it has some main character backup!)
and the Galaxy was designed for long term space exploration to quote 'to explore strange new worlds and seek out new civilisations' and generally go gallivanting about uncharted space without backup or need to resupply hence the 30 odd % extra space.
Pippin209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2014, 01:14 PM   #32
Blip
Fleet Captain
 
Blip's Avatar
 
Location: Deck 13, section 21-Alpha
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

SicOne wrote: View Post
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.

Agree with just about all of the above, though I'd point out there are at least three known major variants (upgrade modifications aside), including one with a smaller, spare set of nacelles atop the very aft saucer IIRC.
__________________
For those determined to contort yourselves into knots so as to include every minor production flub as gospel, and shoehorn it into "cannnonnnnn": STOP. I don't have all day to waste on here; I quite like enjoying real life thankyouverymuch.
Blip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28 2014, 07:29 AM   #33
EmperorTiberius
Captain
 
EmperorTiberius's Avatar
 
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

When it comes to combat, it has to be said that even though Nebula has smaller shield envelope, Galaxy has two extra impulse engines which can be used by shields.
EmperorTiberius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28 2014, 01:07 PM   #34
Blip
Fleet Captain
 
Blip's Avatar
 
Location: Deck 13, section 21-Alpha
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

Good point, although the tactical pod could potentially feature extra fusion generators to provide a "complete package"...
__________________
For those determined to contort yourselves into knots so as to include every minor production flub as gospel, and shoehorn it into "cannnonnnnn": STOP. I don't have all day to waste on here; I quite like enjoying real life thankyouverymuch.
Blip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2014, 10:22 PM   #35
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

What was the purpose of the Nebula with the two small warp nacelles atop the primary hull? I didn't think Nebula was equipped with saucer-sep capability, so it doesn't make sense to have those nacelles there, at least in some kind of in-universe explanation. And, yes, Blip, I think the tactical pod would have extra fusion generators, though I think they'd more support the shield envelope rather than route to the impulse engines.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2014, 03:09 PM   #36
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

More speed?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2014, 09:49 PM   #37
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

More nacelles doesn't necessarily mean more speed, despite what Prometheus fans will tell you. And the wrong-sized nacelles just looked...wrong. Just because.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20 2014, 05:16 PM   #38
Blip
Fleet Captain
 
Blip's Avatar
 
Location: Deck 13, section 21-Alpha
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

SicOne wrote: View Post
And, yes, Blip, I think the tactical pod would have extra fusion generators, though I think they'd more support the shield envelope rather than route to the impulse engines.
That's precisely what I was saying.

There'd be no point to sticking impulse drives up top so far away from the centre of mass anyway IMO, even if they aren't a conventional thrust propulsion.
__________________
For those determined to contort yourselves into knots so as to include every minor production flub as gospel, and shoehorn it into "cannnonnnnn": STOP. I don't have all day to waste on here; I quite like enjoying real life thankyouverymuch.
Blip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20 2014, 07:03 PM   #39
AverageWriter
Lieutenant
 
Location: Tacoma, WA
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

I know that it's not a true basis for judging something, but I always preferred the Galaxy Class over the other similar designs of the day.
To me, the Nebula just looks like a Galaxy that's squatting down to pick up a penny.
AverageWriter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20 2014, 08:43 PM   #40
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

Didn't they convert the rear end of the torpedo pods of the Reliants in DS9 to have extra impulse engines during the Dominion War? Those top pods could very well be additional engines for maneuvering because the ship got too heavy from additional equipment being added internally...
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20 2014, 09:00 PM   #41
Mark_Nguyen
Commodore
 
Mark_Nguyen's Avatar
 
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

Yes and no; a VFX goof (the same kind that saw the Galaxy class starships in DS9 with their saucer-mounted impulse engines constantly lit), saw several Miranda class ships with the aft torpedo pods lit with the same glow as the impulse engines below it. What probably happened was the CG artist in charge of those shots thought the rollbar pod aft holes were impulse engines and lit them accordingly.

What this leaves is the fandom to decide whether or not they were ships modified to have extra sublight speed and maneuverability and thus have a very old design better able to keep up with more modern counterparts - the most popular theory. To devil's advocate it though, you COULD possibly say that those ships just had their aft torpedoes on hot standby as well, kinda like the TMP Klingon ships which had their tubes glowing before they fired. Who knows? Nothing was ever said in dialogue to support anyone modifying anything, after all.

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

Oh, I like that Trek thing too...
Mark_Nguyen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20 2014, 11:27 PM   #42
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

^Are you certain that it was a VFX goof, or did they intentionally do that? I'm fine with it either way.
__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2014, 12:50 AM   #43
Mark_Nguyen
Commodore
 
Mark_Nguyen's Avatar
 
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

No one is sure. The only thing we know is that in the finale (and not before), the CG model of SOME of the Miranda class starships had the aft torpedo launchers lit. No dialogue, nor anything in the DS9 tech manual or any novels or comics (that I know of) mention it.

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__...dorsal_aft.jpg

I see this as a goof. If anyone ever tracks down whoever the CG artist who animated those specific shots, we may see if they remember if they did that deliberately, or was just animating it because the aft torpedo launchers looked like impulse engines and didn't bother confirming it with an actual Trek nerd (I believe this is what happened). That person also gloweyed up the warp nacelles too, which is not consistent with most other shots of the ship, and I consider this also a goof. We're just left to find a suitable explanation that fits our own personal head-canons, and which can be presented to others as such since there is no hard evidence. And of course, this is the sort of thing we THRIVE on!

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

Oh, I like that Trek thing too...
Mark_Nguyen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2014, 05:38 AM   #44
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

Hmm. I don't think it's a VFX (animation) error. Take a look at the rear of the Reliant and compare to the impulse engine on top version in DS9.

The DS9 version's torpedo pod in the rear is divided completely in half by a rectangular hull piece which physically looks like an impulse engine. The Reliant's pod has a cylinder dome that extends back but only covers up the top rear and doesn't divide it.

The DS9 version's impulse engine on the body has the "red exhausts" only half as tall as the ones on the Reliant so they have a different impulse engine setup.

You could say the modeler goofed or changed the design but I don't think it was a goof on the part of the animator.

Anyways, the DS9 ship does have different physical features regardless of the animation fx to think of the rear of the pod as something that appears like an impulse engine, IMHO.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 21 2014, 05:19 PM   #45
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: Nebula vs. Galaxy

I think those differences are mostly the result of creating quick-and-dirty simplified models for use in the fleet shots. But honestly, I kinda like having them a bit different - I'm all for variants! Makes the ships a lot more realistic, like ships IRL.
__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. 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 02:56 PM.

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