According to the above link, this issue of the Communicator has a file on the Nebula class.. Anyone seen it?
Mark
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
One of the people in that thread said he'd e-mail the pics.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Haha, those people (esp. "Mr. Number One Fan!") know so little about the Nebula class...but I guess that reflects the sadness that is my (years ago) obsession over the technical details on that particular subject.
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I hope they know that in DS9's "Waltz" the Defiant Class corridors were used for the USS Honshu...
I recall that we had a discussion here on where the impulse engines were on the Nebula Class before... and that they looked like Voyager's impulse engines.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Yah... the Nebula Class and Galaxy Class saucers are "exactly" the same... except that they're alot different.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge: I recall that we had a discussion here on where the impulse engines were on the Nebula Class before...
As long as they dont use the (idiotic) CGI Nebula from Generations with all the Galaxy windows needlessly added in, I'll buy the issue and share some pics.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
You must be baiting us.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No, I just cant get to the bookstore to check it out until tuesday.
I really wont buy it if it's inaccurate though: I love the Nebula as it's shown on TNG (and some DS9).
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Um, the Nebbie from Generations was the physical studio model.
And I do recall seeing that issue two weeks ago. It was the schematics used in the Fact Files and is readily available on the net already, IIRC.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: As long as they dont use the (idiotic) CGI Nebula from Generations with all the Galaxy windows needlessly added in, I'll buy the issue and share some pics.
That was a CGI Nebula!?! I thought they spruced up the Nebula like they did with the 6 footer Enterprise-D.
I saw that movie the otherday on TV... Damn why did they have to get rid of the E-D!?! It wasn't given a chance on the 'Big Screen'.
It's over a Decade since the big-D graced our screens. Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Yes, and a sad loss indeed. But at least we can find consolation in watching Generations on the SE DVD... Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Yes, the Farragut was the model all repainted, etc. to look good for the movie as seen here.
That's why I said Jason must be baiting us because I figured he must be joking.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
I wish that I'd allowed myself to get that DVD, seeing as how Gen is my 2nd fave of the movies, but money's too tight for me right now.
If you want to talk really baaaad nebulas, the CGI from DS9 was horrible.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
So, did they put the wrong pennant on it because they were using those on the Enterprise-B, or are they hinting that the nebula is older?
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Well, seeing as the Sutherland had the later TNG pennant on the shuttlebay but not on the pylon, it definitely was added (and in fact, as you see here, the pennant was removed from the Farragut's shuttlebay).
Now, of course the Farragut did have a lower registry than the Sutherland...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace: Yes, the Farragut was the model all repainted, etc. to look good for the movie as seen here.
That's why I said Jason must be baiting us because I figured he must be joking.
NO: I really thought it was the same CGI model from the first Ships of the Line calander. I could not fathom the modelmakers making such a collosal fuck-up with the extra windows.
DO you have any other pics of the faragut model (showing those windows)? I've never seen studio model pics with all those windows (thus my thnking it was a CGI cut-n-paste of the Galaxy CGI model).
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
I do not see why you think the Farragut has as many windows as the CGI. As you can see here, here, and here, the Farragut seems to have the same number of windows as the Sutherland.
The USS Honshu, on the other hand, clearly has more windows like that of a Galaxy class saucer.
::to myself:: Why do I know all this?!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
If only it'd have been the Honshu with the 72xxx registry, and the Farragut and the Sutherland with 60xxx ones. Then we could have speculated that first you had the 60xxx Nebulas (-ae?), which pre-date the Galaxy-class therefore they were the first to use this saucer design, then you had a later batch built after the Galaxies but which took design cues from innovations introduced on the Galaxies.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Well, the Farragut's registry is NCC-60597, the lowest known registry besides the Honshu. Plus, you could reason that the Honshu was upgraded, or perhaps we have this all backward and the saucer evolution went the other way around...and then of course you could say perhaps that they simply build two different saucer designs for this class.
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
Do Nebula saucers have the capability to separate as Galaxy ones do? If so, maybe that could explain it. BTW, what part is considered to be the ship's "main" part, the saucer or the hull? I mean, if the saucer is damaged but the hull (+nacelles, etc.) is intact and you get a new saucer, the ship may keep its original registry, but if you lose the hull and everything that survives is the saucer section, what then?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
^^^^
I guess it just depends on its crew. Nothing besides some crewmembers survived the explosion over Genesis, still the new ship was called Enterprise, too. If you loose a part of your ship and Starfleet thinks it can be repaired, you'll get a new engineering section/saucer and keep the old name. Maybe with an added -A, but that doesn't seem to be necessary.
On the other hand, if Galaxy A looses her saucer and Galaxy B looses her engineering section and Starfleet decides to combine both vessels, then... uh, well, that never happened anyway. We'll handle that problem when we have to face it. Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Extra windows is a characteristic of Nebulas manufactured at the Globulin Shipyards of Betelgeuse IV.
Or something.
Marian
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I've got no problem with them just being design variants, just like the big dish up top is different between some Nebulas.
B.J.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I've no problem there, either. If anything, I'd think Galaxy-like features would be typical of early Nebula models, before the class aquired "an identity of its own". Some would have Galaxy saucers, some even Galaxy secondary hulls like the assorted Melbournes and the other tabletop models, because the class-specific designs had not been created yet.
Or it could be mission-specific, sort of. Starfleet might have intended most of the Nebulas to be "worker-class" ships with few flag-showing duties. But when there suddenly were more such duties than there were funded Galaxies, a few Nebulas were built with posh Galaxy saucers for affordable flag-showing. And a few were built with the more muscular, torpedo-toting Galaxy secondary hulls, to do that half of the Galaxy role at lower cost.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"If anything, I'd think Galaxy-like features would be typical of early Nebula models, before the class aquired 'an identity of its own'."
Of course, that only works on the assumption that the Nebula postdates the Galaxy...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace: Well, the Farragut's registry is NCC-60597, the lowest known registry besides the Honshu. Plus, you could reason that the Honshu was upgraded, or perhaps we have this all backward and the saucer evolution went the other way around...and then of course you could say perhaps that they simply build two different saucer designs for this class.
Ah: you're right. It seems I was thinkingt of only the inaccurate CGI model from the SOTH calander (and that's the version I'm hoping is not ued in this month's Communicator- the point to my original post ).
I dont see the Nebula as predating the Galaxy: I also dont think it could be more than 10 years older though either (look at all the shared components!). It seems silly that later Nebulas would have all the additional windows- that would require massive re-designing of the saucer- and the saucer is still not an exact match for the Galaxy: A diffriently shaped shuttlebay and lack of impulse engines for starters, along with unique lifeboat and transporter emitter configurations and those rear-facing phaser strips...
It's better left as a seperate- and unique- class than retroactivly changing it into a simple re-arrangment of Galaxy parts.
A friend of mine (Novahobbies) pointed out that prior to First Contact, the Nebula was the toughest starfleet ship ever shown. Or at least as tough as a Galaxy...mabye the Galaxy started as just a more science/exploration oriented Nebula (with the four nacelled Nebula being a stepping-stone design between the two).
It seems the Nebula was brought into service to be the heavy-hitter of it's time (along with a score of smaller starships of the BOBW graveyard scene- most of which use Nebula/Galaxy components to some extent: bridges in particular)- possibly as a slow rebuilding of fleet losses from the brief Cardassian War, but that's a whole seperate can of worms.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Well, the very first Nebula class we saw, the Phoenix, did seem to take care of the Cardassian fleet pretty easily, destroying even a warship with ease to the amazement of the visiting gul as I recall.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Who just happened to look like Dukat, but wasn't. His name was Macett, IIRC.
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Tell that to Marc Alamo...
So when does this Nebula from the ST: Communicator come out?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: A friend of mine (Novahobbies) pointed out that prior to First Contact, the Nebula was the toughest starfleet ship ever shown.
And your friend got this information how? I see no evidence that the Nebula was "tougher" than any other current Starfleet ship.
And my memory isn't the best, but I don't remember Marcett expressing amazement at the Pheonix destroying the Cardassian ships. It was more shock that they'd done it. Certainly he seemed to know how powerful the Phoenix was; "...not enough to defeat a Nebula-class starship".
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Actually, that line was referring to one of the other Cardassian targets and not the warship. It's been a while since I've seen the episode, too, but I distinctly recall a whole exchange where Picard and co. had located the Phoenix heading towards its next target. The Enterprise was too far away, but Gul Macet said that one of the Cardassian warships was nearby (and he seemed confident it could stop the Phoenix). Then there was this whole deal about sending the Phoenix prefix codes to the Cardassians with O'Brien protesting, but of course we were then treated to an Atari-display of the Phoenix destroying both the original target and the warship, and the gul's shock/amazement. The Cardassians did seem rather weak in the episode, and their little biker helmets didn't really help.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I still got the idea that the shock/amazement was down to the people having been killed. "There were x people on that warship, and on the supply ship...y". Or something.
When the Cardassian ship was attacked the Enterprise at the beginning, did Picard and co give any impression that they were scared?
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
The opening of the episode made it seem that the Galaxy Class starship can easily take on the Galor Class.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Except that Macet's ship probably wasn't one... It was listed as a scout in the episode, and the scale made it look a little smaller. Many people have suggested over the years that it was a stripped-down Galor, or had other key differences to make it different than the "warship" seen only as a blinking dot later on in the episode.
Mark
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
I rather got the impression Macet's shock was due to the Phoenix destroying the Cardassian ship even though they had her prefix codes and were able to lower her shields. Which would indicate that the Phoenix was tougher than Macet expected.
Marian
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Consider that the Phionex destroyed those (multiple) ships without benifit of shields and the Enterprise herself was destroyed by a lone (and old!) KBOP in the exact same manner.
Mabye the Phionex's Chief Engineer was smart enough to rotate the shield frequency one that initial shot got through.
Nova's assumption on the Nebula's toughness is that the Southerland's pod sports multiple launchers (like the Akira) or at least having one more forward launcher than the Galaxy (based on FC's nebula firing from the "neck" like a GCS).
Even without such overkill, the Nebula seems to have the same overall weaponry as a Galaxy in a more compact form (okay, the GCS has more phasers, but none that we've ever seen fired).
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
So I took a quick glance through this Communicator during a break at work today. It is the CGI model with the Galaxy saucer, and it has been re-labeled as the class prototype U.S.S. Nebula, with a registry of NCC-60147. Funny thing is, while that number appears on the dorsal and ventral saucer surfaces, a different registry (NCC-60000) appears on the nacelle pylons. This puzzles me, as neither number has appeared on screen (and therefore aren't remnants of a previous labeling) and both are clearly visible in multiple views of the ship, so it's a pretty glaring mistake that they really should have noticed.
I didn't get a chance to thoroughly review the MSD/cutaway, but it looked like pretty standard stuff. Same on the specs. Anybody have scans?
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Phht. I'll pass.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
quote:Quoth Jason Abbadon: Maybe the Phoenix's Chief Engineer was smart enough to rotate the shield frequency once that initial shot got through.
Or maybe Maxwell just found the manual override faster than Khan did.
Marian
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I meant more that the Phionex's Chief was more on the ball than the blind, unfuckable, recently-tortured, punching-bag from the Enterprise D. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Phoenix.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Jean!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
KIRK! Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Rocky!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Adrian!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Ozymandius!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Allamaraine!
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
KHAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Spock!
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
D'oh!
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Every time you post, my sides split further. Please, think of the sides.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Fries and cole slaw?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
COMMMMMMMEDY!!!!! Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Mornington Crescent!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, at least you didn't name your kid that.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Y'know, it's a funny thing, when I was announcing here that my wife had had a baby, I remember thinking to myself "Who among this lot would take the piss out of someone for the name they choose to give their child?" And the answer popped into my head at once: "Tim."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
hey...you forgot all about me!
It's not too late to change her middle-name to "Abbadon", you know.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Y'know, it's a funny thing, when I was announcing here that my wife had had a baby, I remember thinking to myself 'Who among this lot would take the piss out of someone for the name they choose to give their child?' And the answer popped into my head at once: 'Tim.'"
Well, if nothing else, I live up to expectations.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
If you'd have called her "Apple", I would have lept right in there with the name-calling and the stuff.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Thay's crazy: what kind of moron would name their...
Oh.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The word is 'predictable,' Timothy.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Nothing "new-ish" around here any more. Let's move on, folks.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)