posted
But Nebulas have, over their various onscreen iterations, featured fewer (and then the same) number of window rows as a Galaxy, so who is to say their saucers have the same number of decks? And what about the pod(s)? Do they get deck numbers? If so, how are they counted?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Having gotten that out of my system, Dat's seems as reasonable a guestimate as any.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
I don't think there has ever been a main starship in Trek history that does not have the bridge on deck 1. Furthermore, since the pod might be modular, they could hust as well call it decks "p1"-"pWhatever". I guess the dish variant has a jeffries tube running up either pylon and maybe a maintanance bay inside the dish itself, so I'm not sure if that one would need a designation at all. And the weapons-pod-variant could have a hollow pylon allowing for storage of torpedos, something like that. If you have a deck that's not even 5 meters wide and probably uninhabitated it really doesn't qualify for a deck number (the nacelle pylons of the Galaxy don't have deck numbers, either).
I wonder how the problem of having the bridge not on deck one is handled on other ships that haven't been visited in detail yet (the Akira or Saber for example).
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Why wuldn't the Sabre's bridge be on deck one? Or the Defiant's for that matter?
There's just additional stuff on that deck besides the bridge is all.
I like the idea of the Nebula pods having a seperate designation (P-1 or whatever). I doubt the Phionex-style pod's pylons have more than turboshafts and plasma/computer conduits running through them- plenty of rom to store whatever in the pod itself (it's got more volume than an entire Connie Refit up there!).
I've considered building a nebula with the main shuttlebay up in the pod: it's damn near useless with the pod's support pylon blocking easy entrance/egress.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Except they dont think that the pod has anyone inside it -unless the cutaway only represents the outer sections- that's the problem with cutaways. you'd need a dozen or more to get a real idea of the ship's interior.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
We've speculated before that the pod COULD be manned under certain conditions, if it's outfitted accordingly. The interconnect is certainly big enough to have stairwells and turbolift shafts. Personally, I'm of the opinion that with the exception of the bridge of Prometheus, and the ready room of Phoenix, all the Nebula sets we've seen are actually IN the pod. This is because of the corridor sets we've seen.
We've only *really* seen the corridors on a Nebula once, as the USS Honshu from "Waltz", though it was a re-dress of the cramped and straight Defiant corridor set. In "Second Sight", I believe we can briefly glimpse the corridor through the door of Seyetik's quarters (themselves previously the TNG runabout set), where they looked to have the Galaxy-esque silver walls. In both cases, I think the relative differences in sets could indicate that they were customized modules - Seyetik needed a module for his protomatter equipment and such, and Dukat was being transported under high security.
posted
Another problem with the cutaway is that it assumes that the rear hanger/cargo bay is the main impulse engine.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Recent postings on TrekBBS from Sternbach suggest that practically all TNG era starships don't really use engine exhaust as thrust; the space-time driver coils do all the work, and any actual thrust mostly manifests as a pretty glow on some ships and not on others. This may explain a hell of a lot of things - starting with the notion that mere conventional "rocket thrust" won't easily propel a multi-million ton spaceship to any appreciable fraction of C in any appreciable amount of time.
posted
Regarding saucer size, as far as I can remember what mr Sternbach has told on TrekBBS, Nebula was supposed to be slightly smaller than Galaxy, including saucer size and its diameter. However, all subsequent SFX creators assumed that both saucers have the same diameter and created their models accordingly.
-------------------- "Do I remember about my amnesia?"
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
That cutaway also shows the forward lounge right where the saucers lateral sensor palettes should be. Craziness.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think it's been completely agreed upon, but Jackill's cutaway of the E-B suggests 24 or 25 while Okuda's cutaway of the E-B suggests around 32.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
