posted
What exactly did Starfleet cutout of the Galaxy class to make the Nebula? The Nebula's saucer section is suppose to be two decks shorter than the Galaxy, but on screen stuff suggests otherwise. The Nebula's shorter, losing the saucer-stardrive "neck" and some of the aft stardrive section, but the sensor/torpedo pod assembly takes up a lot of mass. Weapon wise, the two class is about the same, though the Nebula don't have as many phaser arrays due to its hull configuration. Otherwise, the amount of material going into a Nebula seems to be about the same as with building a Galaxy, so how can the Nebula be a cheaper/more economic form of the Galaxy?
This is all assuming the Galaxy predates the Nebula, blah blah blah...
[ June 21, 2001: Message edited by: David Templar ]
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
posted
Well, I believe that the Galaxy class is more expensive because it looks cooler. And that against all odds, somehow Starfleet engineers managed to put a price on coolness.
posted
I think they differ somewhat in mission spec. Both are Heavy Cruisers hardware wise, but the Galaxies seem to dominate exploration in peace time, and perhaps take on a role of command/defence at other times. The Nebula could be classed as a tactical cruiser/or frigate, and be involved more in mission specific tactical deployments. But these issues are open debates.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, keep in mind they're both labeled as "Explorer" types. If the Nebula came first, it seems that the first generation (the actual model) had a saucer with less windows, and that could mean it was built as a speciality ship. Stripped of its pod, this Nebula is probably still ahead of an Ambassador, but not as capable of full "Explorer" duties as the Galaxy. With added enhancements of weapons, sensors, or whatever specific mission type Starfleet needs, this type of Nebula reaches or surpasses the Galaxy-Class in that respect.
Therefore, a first generation Nebula was a customized "equipped for a specific mission" starship. A few years later, the Galaxy debuts. Its role is to handle all these "specific missions" in one shell, no pods needed. While the Galaxy may not be as well-equipped in a specific mission to such an extent as a first generation Nebula with that type of mission pod, it's suitable enough for Starfleet's standards.
Now, a few years later, a second generation (in reality, the CGI model) Nebula is introduced with a full windowed saucer equipped with "hidden" impulse engines on the ends like the Galaxy and a similar deflector. Why is it introduced? Perhaps Starfleet thought that because of the Nebula's smaller size (but not in mass), the ship has better shield protection and possibly outperforms the Galaxy in flight actions. Now, this new Nebula has the added arrangement of the Galaxy and is on par with the Galaxy-Class, even if she doesn't have her pod.
Result? Same ship in a smaller package (but not in actual mass; it's just not spread out as much as the Galaxy as its nacelles are tucked under, etc.).
So, we now have this as the most likely order: I. First generation Nebula with rounder deflector (similar to a stage inbetween the Ambassador and Galaxy) and less windowed saucer II. Galaxy-Class using similar hull shapes and nacelles as a first generation Nebula (similar warp geometry theory at the time?) III. Second generation Nebula with new perhaps "advanced" elements adapted from the Galaxy-Class
posted
Not necessarily. There are several kinds of Nebulae we've seen, which can most easily be distinguished by the number of windows as well as the dish on top. These include:
Phoenix (NCC-65420)- round dish, few windows. This is the only example of this type we've seen.
Sutherland (NCC-72015) et. al. - angular dish, few windows. This is the same physical model, used through TNG, DS9 and a VOY ep or two. Of note is the USS Faragut (NCC-60591).
Honshu (NCC-60205) et. al. - angular dish, many windows. This is the CGI version of the model used in the DS9 battle scenes and a few one-off shows. It uses the standard Galaxy-class saucer to build the model, hence the extra windows.
Oh, and the Farragut is NCC-60597, and we know the Sutherland/Farragut/Lexington model still has the round dish as shown in FC (next to the E-E) and here (the actual studio model labeled as the USS Leeds for the DS9 credits).
posted
With all these exceptions and oddities, I really don't feel comfortable accepting registry numbers as an accurate base for the age of classes.
As for the different looks of the Nebula, that can always be the ever-present mis-CGI demon. Let's not even bring up the Nebula with FOUR nacelles seen at Wolf 359.
Could it be possible that blocks of registry numbers are assigned to classes before hand, when the number of hulls they are going to construct is decided, rather than when the actual ship is launched?
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
posted
However, they are not really "exceptions and oddities" if you put them chronologically. First you had the Pheonix model, the Sutherland Model, the Sutherland model repainted and touched up for the Farragut in Generations, and finally the CGI model using the Galaxy-Class parts and the Farragut's new paint scheme and hidden impulse engines (minus the Starfleet emblem on the shuttlebay and the two aft phaser arrays on the saucer).
If you think about it for a while, these changes can be explained as the class evolving over time and being refitted. Besides, the Honshu CGI model still looks good. What's wrong with CGI?
(Whew...)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
