Nebula Class

[asdf1]

Personally, i think the Nebula Class is a much better design in comparison with the Galaxy class.

It's smaller, compact size means that the shields should be more effective and stronger.

Also, the adaptable mission pod should mean that it is the most useful class in the fleet, eg, sensor pod and tactical pod.

With the sensor pod, it would be completely unmatched, theoritically it would have the ability to see alot further than any other ship.

The tactical pod would make it one of, if not the strongest in Starfleet, the pod is quite big and it would probably hold a fair few torpedoes.

 

[Michael]

Personally, i think the Nebula Class is a much better design in comparison with the Galaxy class.

Personally I like the Galaxy class more.

It's smaller, compact size means that the shields should be more effective and stronger.

Really? Where do you get that from?

With the sensor pod, it would be completely unmatched, theoritically it would have the ability to see alot further than any other ship.

All the ships in all the series can "see" as far as the story needs them to. The sensor pod doesn't make a difference at all.

The tactical pod would make it one of, if not the strongest in Starfleet, the pod is quite big and it would probably hold a fair few torpedoes.

All the ships in all the series are as strong as the story needs them to be. The design doesn't make a difference at all.

 

[Borg451]

Personally, i think the Nebula Class is a much better design in comparison with the Galaxy class.

Personally I like the Galaxy class more.

It's smaller, compact size means that the shields should be more effective and stronger.

Really? Where do you get that from?

With the sensor pod, it would be completely unmatched, theoritically it would have the ability to see alot further than any other ship.

All the ships in all the series can "see" as far as the story needs them to. The sensor pod doesn't make a difference at all.

The tactical pod would make it one of, if not the strongest in Starfleet, the pod is quite big and it would probably hold a fair few torpedoes.

All the ships in all the series are as strong as the story needs them to be. The design doesn't make a difference at all.

assuming same powerplant as Galaxy, stronger shields cos less area to defend..

 

[judge alba]

mind you i wouldn't like to serve on one, the radiation from the nacelles would leak pretty bad into the 2ndry hull that's why the warp nacelles are for the most part as far away from the ship as is possible to protect the crew from radiation well that's what i remeber reading somewhere in one of the manauls.
Mind you i agree it's still a better looking ship the the galaxy

 

[137th Gebirg]

I would agree that it's a better looking ship, but yes it does seem to violate one of GR's "rules" of ship design - and it was mentioned previously - in that not only should the warp engines be further away, but there should be nothing in between them blocking each other's view - something about warp field integrity, IIRC. Not that I ever gave much lip service to said "rules", but there it is. And then there's the impulse engine "problem". Other than those two things, yes, I think it is a pretty nicely laid out ship.

 

[Unicron]

Andrew Probert devised the "rule" about LOS between the nacelles, and there are certainly other official designs that violate this idea. His idea when he was designing the movie-era Enterprise was that the nacelles would actually exchange energy, and that's why they needed a line of sight to create a balanced warp field.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Andrew Probert came up with that??? I always heard that was a Roddenberry thing, used as a guide for Jefferies when he did the original, along with the bridge being on top of the primary hull, etc.

Well, if A.P. is still around on TBBS, he might be able to answer this with some authority then.

 

[Wonderlust King]

I didn't like it until I got my little model of it in this set, then I just really admired its compactness.

 

[Timo]

Andrew Probert came up with that??? I always heard that was a Roddenberry thing, used as a guide for Jefferies when he did the original, along with the bridge being on top of the primary hull, etc.

The usual story is that Roddenberry came up with the rules expressly to discredit the Star Fleet Technical Manual work of Franz Schnaubelt, with whom he had a disagreement. The rules certainly seem to be at odds with what had already been seen in TOS (say, no line of sight between the nacelles of the Aurora), although one might say they also make scifi sense in establishing something extra about previously undefined fictional technology.

I rather like to think of the Nebula as the bread-and-butter version of the Galaxy: the latter is the croissant-and-marmelade model, with all sorts of cool and nice-to-have features introduced for the sake of impressing the natives, even when the same basic components are being used. And I have a soft spot for bread-and-butter or "bluecollar" ships in science fiction.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Unicron]

Yes, the only true Roddenberry rule is that nacelles have to be in even pairs. Gene felt you needed that to create a stable warp field, and any odd number of nacelles would be like a helicopter without the tail rotor to balance the main rotor's force. Probert devised some of the other "rules" from that rule of Gene's. He would be better able to answer then I would, but you can read some interesting comments in his interview with TrekPlace.

 

[AviTrek]

Of course, even that rule was violated in AGT.

 

[Forbin]

And gene also came up with the no-odd nacelle rule, after the fact, to discredit Franz Joseph as well.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Of course, even that rule was violated in AGT.

Ah, yes - Riker's hotrod. It can be argued that each Galaxy-class nacelle had two distinct warp coils in it (something which I believe has been shown in various official documentation and on screen - the one where Troi almost threw herself into the M/AM stream), as first immediately shown by two separate bussard "lights" in the front. This would lead one to believe that the E-D had the equivalent of four "old-style" engines (like the Constellation class) and the AGT E-D had the equivalent of six, in keeping with the even-numbered nacelles rule.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Yes, the only true Roddenberry rule is that nacelles have to be in even pairs. Gene felt you needed that to create a stable warp field, and any odd number of nacelles would be like a helicopter without the tail rotor to balance the main rotor's force. Probert devised some of the other "rules" from that rule of Gene's. He would be better able to answer then I would, but you can read some interesting comments in his interview with TrekPlace.

Fantastic article! Thank you for linking to it - first time I've read that comprehensive a background on Probert's designs. It's a shame the pictures are gone. I would like to have seen them.

 

[Unicron]

Do you mean the pics within the article itself? I can see them fine, so if you can't then perhaps it might be a browser issue.

 

[FalTorPan]

Do you mean the pics within the article itself? I can see them fine, so if you can't then perhaps it might be a browser issue.

I've found that most or all people who have had issues viewing the images on my site seem to have perhaps overly secure anti-whatever software running on their machines.

 

[137th Gebirg]

AH! That was it - I was running RefControl - blocks referrer strings in the HTTP header stream.

 

[Bill Morris]

I hadn't seen this thread before. I'm just now gatheriing tidbits about the Nebula class. Bolian Admiral mentioned that it doesn't do saucer separation, and in Trek Tech there's a recent thread about missing impuse outlets on the filming model.

Trekmania has a nice Nebula page:
http://www.trekmania.net/the_fleet/utopia/fleet/nebula.htm

Exploremedia.net has original Nebula beauty-shot wallpaper for your 21-st century PCs:
http://www.explorermedia.net/main/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?46

And I'm just starting on this for my LCARS library (referring to the side-view drawing in the Star Trek Encyclopedia):

 

[Timo]

I'd argue the Nebula does do saucer separation - what other reason would there be for the existence of the saucer if not separation?

But I'm ready to accept that a Nebula isn't rigged for the parlor trick of repeated jettison and reattaching of the saucer. Which is probably why the saucer doesn't need big impulse engines, either... Although it's not as if the ship had an impulse engine in the secondary hull to compensate.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TeutonicNights]

I just love the nebula. the gorgeous Nebula shots in "Second Sight" made that episode quite enjoyable.
And the final shot of Generations with the Nebula closeup/Warp shot was absolutely brilliant.

 

[Timo]

The gorgeous Nebula shots in "Second Sight" made that episode quite enjoyable.

Agreed. Too bad that the plot of the episode actually called for a very small starship, one where Gideon Seyetlik's ego could rule sovereign and where even the captain would not have the clout to oppose him.

Timo Saloniemi