• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Nebula Bonchune vs Sutherland variants

C

CharlieZardoz

Lieutenant
Red Shirt
Hi everyone! I was looking into building a customized version of the nebula class model (via Warp or DLM) and during research came to understand that the Bonchune/Honshu variant seems to be fairly different in its CGI design vs. the model that was used for Sutherland/Leeds/Farragut etc. Up until now I thought it was only a matter of extra windows. I'm aware that the reason for the change was that the CGI designer used the Galaxy template and just arranged the parts to look like a Nebula without consulting the model, however I'm also not entirely trusting the images present below.

http://www.neutralzone.de/database/Federation/Starfleet/NebulaVariant2_02.htm

http://www.neutralzone.de/database/Federation/Starfleet/Nebula02.htm

Could it really have been that off? I always attributed the weird shape of the CGI Nebula to rushed sloppy (and now rather archaic) computer generating. In this diagram the differences seem minor, slight movement of the saucer and changes in the drive section but overall the saucer is the same shape.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/nebula.jpg

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/nebula-bonchune.jpg

From what I can tell the Nebula class studio model had a flatter saucer section than the Galaxy with a wider sensor strip but I can't tell for certain. I suppose one way to know conclusively is to buy the Warp model kit of the Sutherland (if I can find one) and compare the resin saucer with that of a Galaxy model since the new conversion kits lack the saucer due to their being for the Honshu.

BTW other than Honshu and Bonchune and nameless ships in the Dominion war were there any other nebula ships that were featured in the CGI design, as far as I know ships like Lexington, Endeavor and T'kumbra all used the studio model no?

Any thoughts or help would be appreciated. :lol::confused::)
 
Is the DS9 CGI model the same as used in VOY "Message in a Bottle", i.e. the ship labeled USS Bonchune and nicely seen from multiple angles (and supposedly represented 100% accurately in that Drex Files image)? Or was there a separate, lower-rez model for DS9?

The secondary hull differences aren't quite as extreme as suggested by the first pair of pics. That is, the physical-model fantail probably isn't quite as thick as indicated by the other picture - the Ex Astris Scientia photos of that area in the original Phoenix show a fairly slim structure. As for the exact shape of the top module, I don't think it would be a negative thing for there to be a bit of variety...

Difficult to tell about the saucer shape. How would Jein have flattened the physical saucer of the Phoenix if he used Galaxy molds for it?

Timo Saloniemi
 
Wingsley said:
Your Ex Astris links trigger a hot-link deflection from the site.
Click to expand...
It's best to link to the relevant EAS article like this, or alternatively, side-load the images one wants to share to imgur.com or similar image hosting services, like so:

qsv87eD.jpg


eJzUXps.jpg
 
Ah good, I wasn't sure how to do that. To my knowledge the CGI Nebula in DS9 and Voyager are the same however DS9 even up until the end mixed CGI with models due to reusing stock images so the arrival of the T'Kumbra for example was the same stock image for all the other Nebula arrivals. There is a part of me that believes that the Bonchune variant was simply used out of necessity like it wasn't meant to be looked at so closely and was meant to represent all Nebula's like Sutherland which was supposedly fighting in the Dominion war and we know what that ship looked like. If they had removed the additional windows I would have honestly not thought they were different at all. The Drex image is definitely accurate if you look at close up pics of the Bonchune they match. Looking at the two images below perhaps they weren't as different as the comparison above (in my first link the sci-fi art.com) made them seem though it's not exactly easy to compare a studio model to an imaginary one :) What I am curious about is if the saucer shape itself was changed, the Nebula studio model seemed flatter?

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20150131180339&path-prefix=en

http://i.imgur.com/BHpUNpu.jpg

I agree I like variety however when it comes to building models I want to do what I can to build them accurately especially if I wind up building the Sutherland and Bonchune side by side. Gosh I would love a round 2 Nebula ^_^
 
CharlieZardoz said:
BTW other than Honshu and Bonchune and nameless ships in the Dominion war were there any other nebula ships that were featured in the CGI design, as far as I know ships like Lexington, Endeavor and T'kumbra all used the studio model no?
Click to expand...

Both the Lexington and the T'Kumbra were just stock footage of the Prometheus from the first season of DS9, which was the original TNG studio model. As for the Endeavor, that ship was never shown on screen.
 
Well there is speculation that the Endeavour was the Nebula in the 001 battle. Or maybe it was the Lexington but to my knowledge First Contact used the studio model. But yeah there's very little info to determine what alot of the supposed Nebula class ships looked like. I assume all the stock footage ones looked like Sutherland/Farragut but other than Bonchune and Honshu the CGI model wasn't used to depict any other "named" ships to my knowledge. TBH I'm not fully sure if the design of the CGI model wasn't supposed to be some sort of retcon thing. This is all well and fine until it comes time for me to sit and build some models. :)
 
A Nebula-class ship actually appeared in STFC? I will definitely have to go back and look...I know the Endeavour and Lexington were mentioned in dialogue but I had no idea one of these ships actually showed up onscreen.

Edit: Yes, there is one, right after Picard gives the order to fire. Okey-dokey!
 
While there was a Nebula class ship in FC, it was the studio model, as the CGI model wouldn't have been created until two years later for DS9 & VOY. And to my knowledge, the studio model was never labeled as "U.S.S. Endeavor."
 
The model was labeled as USS Leeds/USS Farragut (different on top and bottom) when it was shot for First Contact.

USS Farragut had been destroyed by the Klingon by the time of the Battle of Sector 001.
USS Leeds has no story that I am aware other than visiting Deep Space Nine the day they decided to make a new intro photo shoot pass of the station.
 
Dukhat said:
While there was a Nebula class ship in FC, it was the studio model, as the CGI model wouldn't have been created until two years later for DS9 & VOY. And to my knowledge, the studio model was never labeled as "U.S.S. Endeavor."
Click to expand...

In-universe, it probably was the Endeavour, though, if only for the fact that the Lexington was so badly damaged (as we hear in the background chatter - "96 dead, 42 wounded"). The Nebula that appears in the film is intact and in relatively good condition, and doesn't look like a ship that had suffered such casualties.
 
Has anyone done up a table or chart listing all the known ships and which variant they are?

Personally I really like having all these variants in the models. It's a bit more like real world ships in that way. For example, I don't think any two of the Nimitz class aircraft carriers are exactly alike.
 
Mr. Laser Beam said:
In-universe, it probably was the Endeavour, though, if only for the fact that the Lexington was so badly damaged (as we hear in the background chatter - "96 dead, 42 wounded"). The Nebula that appears in the film is intact and in relatively good condition, and doesn't look like a ship that had suffered such casualties.
Click to expand...

While I don't have a problem speculating that the Nebula in FC was the Endeavor, a Nebula class ship should probably have the same crew complement (1,000+) as a Galaxy class ship, since they share almost the same volume. So having 96 dead crewmembers while having the ship still looking intact doesn't stretch my imagination all that much.

B.J. said:
Has anyone done up a table or chart listing all the known ships and which variant they are?
Click to expand...

Bernd did in his ship class page at Ex-Astris-Scientia, but it's been a long time since he updated it and some of the information is wrong, such as the desktop model variants in Sisko's office.
 
I think part of the overall frustration with cataloguing Star Trek ships is the continual introducing of new "old" designs without explanation. If the Honshu had a registry number of 75,000+ we could assume it was some sort of new variation design but with one of the oldest nebula registries they most likely are all be built side by side based on mission needs met. It's the same issue with the Steamrunner/Akira class magically showing up by first contact era we are supposed to believe these ships had been in service since the beginning which based on their design seems suspect. The only conclusion I can draw is that any ship with an onscreen appearance even if stock images were used is supposed to look as it did on screen and any that haven't been seen (in this case the Monitor, Merrimac, Hera, Proxima and Ulysses) could be of any of the variants mentioned so if I build models of any of them i'll just have to eenie meenie minie moe it :D
 
Last edited:
BTW Dukat was reading your Conjectural Classes piece and I agree the Tolstoy could very well be the Nebula study model which could be the Rigel class. Makes a lot of sense.
 
Thanks! While there are numerous differences between the BoBW study model and the actual Nebula class filming model to conjecture that it's a different class (mainly the four nacelles and the use of Enterprise-D model parts to construct the saucer and secondary hull), what really grabbed my attention was the closeness of the registry numbers (62043 for the Melbourne and 62095 for the Tolstoy, since the last two digits look similar from a distance). When Okuda wrote up the shiplist for the first Encyclopedia, the Melbourne had already been established as an Excelsior class ship in DS9's "Emissary," so it's possible he sort of retconned the Nebula study model into the Rigel class Tolstoy. But that's just my theory based on no real evidence.
 
Well considering the information given (Cmdr Shelby calling out Tolstoy, Kyushu, Melbourne), we know in those shots were the kitbashed models for Springfield, New Orleans, and the proto- Nebula, the Springfield USS Chekov was never officially changed to the Tolstoy and she never called out the Princeton or Ahwahnee so with the Melbourne becoming an Excelsior it frees up the proto-nebula to very likely be the Tolstoy by default. And with the registries of the Tolstoy (and the Akagi as well), being so close to Nebula class registries it makes a good argument that the Rigel class could very well be the Nebula study model. At least there is nothing contradicting that information. As it's doubtful Okuda, Sternbach and the rest would ever go back to write some sort of updated comprehensive guide to Star Trek ships with accurate pictures and descriptions all we have is what was made way back then and a lot of those study models and sketchings could be decent shoe-ins for some of the conjectural classes, like Probert's Ambassador for the Renaissance class, Excelsior study for the Hokule'a or the Intrepid study model for something like the Bradbury or Sequoia types. It's fun to speculate where some of these designs could have homes though as you say there's no real evidence but a there is some logic to it all. :)
 
Last edited:
The ASDB already made fine designs for the Renaissance, Bradbury, Sequoia, and Hokule'a class, while I'm pretty sure that they used the Intrepid study model as a start to design the Andromeda class.
 
we know in those shots were the kitbashed models for...
Click to expand...
...But considering the cuts in the shots, plenty of other ships might have been "in" them, floating past the viewscreen when the camera was looking elsewhere. Or Data might have been covering the battlefield by rapidly switching, zooming or panning the image to show various directions, right when Shelby was speaking.

Just saying. We have fewer backstage candidates and fewer actually photographed pieces of hardware than there supposedly were ships there, and when we don't even have solid evidence of what Shelby "really" was seeing, all bets really are off...

Timo Saloniemi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top