Galaxy & Nebula class

[BolianAuthor]

No.

Here are the FACTS...

We have seen the Galaxy-Class separate on-screen.

We have seen the Prometheus-Class separate on-screen.

It has been stated by people on the show, that the 1701 and 1701-A were DESIGNED to separate.

John Eaves stated that the 1701-E was DESIGNED to separate.

Other than these instances, there is NO established evidence of ANY sort, that any other classes of ship can separate, and that is plain and simple fact. Like I said, it's your choice to ignore that if you wish, but I won't. The burden of proof is on you... show me prrof that the Nebula CAN separate... CANON proof, and I'll admit I'm wrong.

 

[MaxPower]

There is no cannon proof that it can separate but then it never said it cannot. So the argument will always be up in the air. I mixed on the subject because it looks hard to separate because of the layout of the pod position. On the flip side the Nebula is a neck less galaxy so why not separate, change the pod change the saucer per mission.

You could have saucer A for science and exploration and saucer b for border duty and change them out every year or so. This would beat moving your family stuff around if border duty was a non family assignment.

 

[Timo]

Other than these instances, there is NO established evidence of ANY sort, that any other classes of ship can separate, and that is plain and simple fact.

On that exact same vein, there's no established evidence that a Nebula class vessel could launch shuttlecraft - nobody has said so, no episode has shown this to happen.

That's the exact same argument as saying that the Nebula can't separate. We see identifiable shuttlebays on the model, so is it really "up to us to decide" whether the ship can launch shuttles? We see a saucer/hull attachment system on the Nebula that is 100% identical with the system we see on the Galaxy (because they were built from the same model/CGI parts, doh!), so is it really "up to us to decide" whether one of the two identical saucers can separate while the other demonstrably can?

To claim that proof of separation ability is required is theoretically possible, I guess. Similarly, you could always demand proof that a person with healthy-looking eyes isn't blind. But that would be silly of you, and you would be rightfully ignored - the burden of proof is very obviously on the one that claims an intriguing exception from the established norm.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

I've been looking at the Nebula filming model at the EAS Gallery and Nebula Observations page, and I can't for the life of me find a seperation line on the saucer.

Huh.

 

[Timo]

The thing is, the picture on the previous page of this thread clearly shows a separation line...

In the context of the Trek universe, I wouldn't wonder a bit if some of the Nebulas (those represented by the later model and CGI work) were built to separate in Galaxy fashion, while others (those seen in the form of earlier models, save for the tabletops which were kitbashed from E-D sets and thus probably had prominent separation lines) were completed to a simpler standard and didn't separate. Or then separated without leaving that telltale little "aft lip" behind.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bostonian]

The thread on the previous page clearly shows a separation line, but I think there’s some ambiguity as to where the impulse engines and small phaser strips belong—with the stardrive section or the saucer? It could go either way with the physical model, and the CGI one at DrexFiles seems to me to imply they are closer to the stardrive section.

I think that, if the Nebula were capable of separation, it would be an emergency measure only, not for tactical purposes à la the Galaxy-class. The whole ship just seems too closely integrated to me. I would imagine a lot more entangling of systems between the two sections (like phaser power being tied to warp power as was mentioned in TMP) and fewer redundant systems, which could have significant cost savings.

I’d still be skeptical of a separating Nebula, though—I remember the saucer section of the E-D always moving up a little bit during separation, and the Nebula’s sensor pod means that maneuvering the saucer out would have to be done pretty gently. Although this could easily be automated, if the ship was so damaged that a quick separation was necessary I’d probably be headed for a lifeboat.

(Oh, and hello everyone—first post.)

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

The impulse engines would clearly have to go with the saucer, or it would be a dead duck in space.

 

[Saquist]

There are distinct Nebula Classes.
The Nebula Class seen above is one of the last CGI versions done of the model. BUT the original Model that showed up in the TNG The Wounded.

This ship had a secondary hull that actually stood away from the saucer and some angles seem to show a neck. This model I believe was made modular.

The other like those above are clearly not modular.

 

[Lyon_Wonder]

Has anyone noticed that Nebula class bridges seen on TNG and DS9 look like a complete afterthought. They looked cramped and awkward compared to the bridge of the E-D. Heck, the bridge on the nebula class USS Prometheus in the 2nd season DS9 ep didn’t even look much like a typical Starfleet bridge. IIRC, the bridge of the Galaxy class Odyssey didn’t look like the ENT-D either. IMO, bridges seen on nebula class ships should have looked a lot like the ENT-D bridge.

 

[ALF]

Since we're slinging facts here, which came first, the Nebula or the Galaxy class?

 

[BlastHardcheese]

Since we're slinging facts here, which came first, the Nebula or the Galaxy class?

I always figured that the Nebula was to the Galaxy what the Miranda was to the refit Conny.

Rumor has it that the Miranda was developed in tandem as a light cruiser variant of the refit Constitution class sometime after 2270. I envisioned the Nebula being developed in a similar fashion alongside the Galaxy.

 

[James Wright]

I got to looking at the picture of the Nebula class starship posted up thread and noticed a line running from the outside edge of both impulse engines along a line in front of the aft most phaser strips, and I got to thinking, if the saucer section seperates along this line how would the saucer section move, it left its' engines back with the rest of the ship?
It can't seperate!

James

 

[BlastHardcheese]

if the saucer section seperates along this line how would the saucer section move, it left its' engines back with the rest of the ship?
It can't seperate!

James

The engines are still there, they're just hidden for aesthetic reasons! Or something!

 

[Timo]

The original models (Phoenix and Sutherland and the latter's sisters from TNG, and Farragut from ST:GEN) had teeny weeny engines just below the saucer aft lip, even if they were never lit. They apparently attached to the saucer, not to the warp engine pylons, thus providing the necessary high sublight propulsion after separation.

Perhaps the later CGI ships which lack these little engines were designed to operate their saucers on steering thrusters only? The separation line is there; if the separation is intended only as an emergency maneuver that allows the crew to escape onto a nearby planet, then impulse engines might not be necessary after all. Or then they are hidden behind that separation line - easily possible if they are as small as the ones on the physical-model ships.

Or, since the separation-line, no-tiny-engines ships also have these fancy and prominent smooth covers over the places where a Galaxy saucer would have impulse engines, perhaps an emergency separation of this kind of a Nebula saucer would also see these covers blown off, revealing the saucer emergency impulse engines?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[James Wright]

If I remember correctly the impulse engines one the saucer section of the Enterprise-D were mounted further out on the aft edge of the saucer section and were larger than those on the Nebula seen up thread.

James

 

[Saquist]

Since we're slinging facts here, which came first, the Nebula or the Galaxy class?

Has anyone noticed that Nebula class bridges seen on TNG and DS9 look like a complete afterthought. They looked cramped and awkward compared to the bridge of the E-D. Heck, the bridge on the nebula class USS Prometheus in the 2nd season DS9 ep didn’t even look much like a typical Starfleet bridge. IIRC, the bridge of the Galaxy class Odyssey didn’t look like the ENT-D either. IMO, bridges seen on nebula class ships should have looked a lot like the ENT-D bridge.

That's because the Nebula Class is older. Registry in the 63,000 series. The First Galalxy starts in the 70,000's

 

[ALF]

I'm pretty sure the Galaxy (and by association, the Nebula) sported modular bridges.
The bridges looked cramped and awkward because whatever week's episode blew the budget on other things.

 

[Saquist]

I think it's appropriate that the Galaxy was the refinement of all those supposedly predessesor ships like Ambassador, Nebula and New Orleans.

 

[Longinus]

Hmm. While Nebula looks like it could maybe separate, I do not think it's given that it has that ability. After all, I'm sure no-one assumes that Miranda can separate it's engine section, and Nebula is design reminiscent of that class. I think it depends on whether you assume that the saucer separation is something that Star Fleet puts as standard on any class it possibly can, or is it a expensive special feature present only on most fancy models.

In any case, I never much cared for Nebula-class. It is just a kitbash, and ugly one at that.

 

[regemet]

I would say the saucer can seperate. If you go to http://www.federationmodels.com/ you will find kits for both Sutherland and Pheonix and they both show a Galaxy class seperation plane.