StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Looking at the Nebula model, it seems to have only slightly less volume than the Galaxy class, but it has a much more compact frame, as well as an external hard point for mission-specific pods. Considering that the Galaxy was designed and fielded as a flexible, powerful jack-of-all-trades, wouldn't the Nebula class be even more adapt for that role?

The only advantage I can think of that the Galaxy has over the Nebula is speed. The Galaxy's layout seems to give it a slight advantage reaching warp 9+ speeds, but how often does that come into play?

What do you think?

The Nebula was originally conceived of as being significantly smaller than the Galaxy, which I think is kind of suggested by both The Wounded and First Contact. I think there are minor details on the saucer that are also supposed to suggest this. The engineering section is also subtly different in shape, and certain details (like the nacelle pylon phaser strips) appear proportionally larger than on the Galaxy class. When they went to CGI for the Nebula class, however, the modelers basically just kitbashed the Galaxy parts at 1:1, substantially increasing the volume of the ship.

I'm not so sure the Nebula is quite as adaptable as advertised. Look at the module pylons for the Phoenix vs the pylons for the Farragut - they're totally different. There's also the Melbourne type which has two miniature warp nacelles up there! These various types don't seem very swappable to me. It seems more likely to me that the Nebula is less a "swappable module" ship and more just a common, cheaper design that's easily produced in different subtypes that are best suited to certain roles.


The thing about the Galaxy class (and to at least some extent, probably the Nebula as well) is that it already has a lot of "modular" space built into the saucer for expansion or mission-specific configurations. You can fill those out with some yard time (or possibly even just loading it into the ship's cargo bay and having the crew put it together en route, if need be and possible), and the base doesn't have to store a bulky external module or a bunch of hull plating with which to reassemble a big external module - it just has to store crates of equipment and infrastructure, a lot of which it would need to anyway for starship repair and overhaul.


Oddly, we never saw very many Nebulas in DS9. You'd think that they would have been more common in those big fleet shots, but it seems the CGI guys were too lazy to do anything but spam a shitload of Galaxys and Excelsiors and shit.

Uraniun235 wrote:Oddly, we never saw very many Nebulas in DS9. You'd think that they would have been more common in those big fleet shots, but it seems the CGI guys were too lazy to do anything but spam a shitload of Galaxys and Excelsiors and shit.

I'd call it laziness, but from a continuity standpoint its clear the Nebula is more than a match for Cardassian vessels. In "The Wounded" the Nebula-class Phoenix manages to destroy a Cardassian warship, even with its shields down.

Nebulas did seem to end up docked at DS9 a lot though...

The Wounded was really weird like that, didn't the Enterprise also take a near-unshielded hit and have almost no damage, and then totally break the Cardassian's shields with barely any effort? That's definitely one of those odd incongruities - it's supposedly been a brutal war with a fragile yet vital peace, but Cardassian warships are less of a threat than shitty third-hand Klingon birds-of-prey piloted by a skeleton Ferengi crew? I don't think the writers really thought that* through at all, although frankly nearly any battle in TNG after Wolf 359 had all the suspense of a small sack of Nerf balls.


*That, of course, being a huge retcon including an entire decade+ of off-and-on hostilities with the Cardassians, including at least one hot war.



EDIT: Oh, anyway, I'm pretty sure the Nebula at DS9 was a stock shot, which was itself made with the old models-and-cameras process. We did see at least one Nebula in combat in DS9 - getting ambushed by a pack of Cardassian starships.

I don't think the writers ever got a firm hand on the Cardassian ships. Maybe they had a "strength in numbers" deal? One on one, Cardassian ships don't stand a chance against a Nebula or Galaxy, but maybe the Cardassians can pump crap tons of them out and shoot to overwhelm their opponents. If the Cardassians have vast ship building resources, it would explain how the Dominion managed to hold off most of the major powers with just Cardassian territory as a resource base.

Yes, the Nebula was indeed a stock shot. Aside from the one in the opening credits, it did serve as a couple named ships. Notably, the ship commanded by that Vulcan dude who was Sisko's rival at the Academy was a Nebula (in the baseball episode). As that Vulcan was a rather decorated officer, presumably a Nebula isn't a shabby assignment.

The Nebula class is just about the same size as the Galaxy. The drive section is a little different in shape. But you have the mission pod and the neck attaching the pod. Its about the same relative internal volume.

Supposedly the internals on the Galaxy are interchangable and that is what allows it to act multi-mission. But even the Nebula should have this option. The mission pod might be easier to replace if they use a standard connection (which most are like the Sutherland). Of course if they really wanted to make the Galaxy multi mission they should have used different saucers for each mission.

Anyway, the Nebula has just a hair less firepower (fewer phasers), but has greater forward firepower with 2 torpedo launchers (Sutherland subtype). Warp Speed is partially set by hull shape (Warp Geometry, or whatever they claim) and it seems the Galaxy has better speed and endurance. Nebula should have the same energy plant but has less surface area for shields.

This is how Steve put it. The Galaxy was a committee design. It was meant to do everything. The Nebula was built as a mission specific design. Probably pushed through Starfleet by some Admirals who wanted something useful and it piggy backed the Galaxy R&D costs by utilizing as many of the same components.

Counting 'firepower' by the number of phaser strips seems pretty daft; its not like ST ships go rotational death-blossom to deliver more firepower.

Skylon wrote:I don't think the writers ever got a firm hand on the Cardassian ships. Maybe they had a "strength in numbers" deal? One on one, Cardassian ships don't stand a chance against a Nebula or Galaxy, but maybe the Cardassians can pump crap tons of them out and shoot to overwhelm their opponents. If the Cardassians have vast ship building resources, it would explain how the Dominion managed to hold off most of the major powers with just Cardassian territory as a resource base.

The ways I've heard the Cardassian War described are oddly akin to the Vietnam War, but in space, somehow. They rarely engaged the Federation directly, except when they had to.

This quote from Soldiers of The Empire has more to say: "...two years I've spent on the Cardassian border. Two years of fighting guls and legates and glinns. They were cunning enemies... always had us chasing sensor ghosts and holo-projections... everything was a game with them... a plan within a plan within a plan leading into a trap."

The Federation never seemed to commit to a full scale war with the Cardies, so as a result they managed to defend their territory from an opponent who didn't have a great interesting in acquiring more. But when the Klingons invaded, the Cardassian dominoes fell like a house of cards. Checkmate.

Stark wrote:Counting 'firepower' by the number of phaser strips seems pretty daft; its not like ST ships go rotational death-blossom to deliver more firepower.

They don't do it often, but they are capable of using multiple strips at a time. And the Galaxy having more strips also gives it superior overall coverage. The Nebula has horrible coverage as a result of its design.

Where are the two torpedo launchers on the Sutherland type? (I take it that the Sutherland type is what we see in Generations, although I thought that one was the Farragut?)

The triangle pod was first seen in Redemption, on a ship named the Sutherland. The Farragut was indeed the ship seen in Generations.

Alyeska wrote:The Nebula class is just about the same size as the Galaxy. The drive section is a little different in shape. But you have the mission pod and the neck attaching the pod. Its about the same relative internal volume.

Supposedly the internals on the Galaxy are interchangable and that is what allows it to act multi-mission. But even the Nebula should have this option. The mission pod might be easier to replace if they use a standard connection (which most are like the Sutherland). Of course if they really wanted to make the Galaxy multi mission they should have used different saucers for each mission.

Anyway, the Nebula has just a hair less firepower (fewer phasers), but has greater forward firepower with 2 torpedo launchers (Sutherland subtype). Warp Speed is partially set by hull shape (Warp Geometry, or whatever they claim) and it seems the Galaxy has better speed and endurance. Nebula should have the same energy plant but has less surface area for shields.

This is how Steve put it. The Galaxy was a committee design. It was meant to do everything. The Nebula was built as a mission specific design. Probably pushed through Starfleet by some Admirals who wanted something useful and it piggy backed the Galaxy R&D costs by utilizing as many of the same components.

Pfft, I could just as easily call it a huge porkbarrel scam for the contractors who make those "mission pods". Seriously, an alleged series of varying "mission pods" that are only compatible with one class of starship? That don't even all have common connecting pylons? That would consume enormous volume at starbases, even in disassembled form just by sheer dint of the hull plating and plumbing to support that superstructure? Yeah, uh-huh. The Nebula as the noble, wise plan from the poor misunderstood defense-minded admirals, against the big mean ol' commie peacenik-sponsored Galaxy. If only we could have just built AKIRA SWARM from the beginning and smote all those evil bumpheads with righteous TORPEDO SPAM.

The mission pod concept might have potential if there was actually a swarm of Nebulae out there to make storing and installing pods at starbases worthwhile. As-is, though, we see so damn few of them that for all the extra mission pods you'd have to build to actually make it possible for a Nebula to run to a starbase to refit, you could probably just as well build a bunch of smaller (and actually mission-specific) ships to run around and take care of trouble spots, which is presumably why you'd call in your Nebula ships to swap out the pods in the first place


Trying to call Nebula mission specific while at the same time arguing that it has at least as much volume as a Galaxy, built with enormous common design with the Galaxy, without any evidence to suggest that the internal arrangement of the primary hull is significantly different, seems at least somewhat absurd. It might be better in certain scenarios than an all-purpose starship (many of which appear to involve "scan the fuck out of everything") but that doesn't make it mission specific.

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:Where are the two torpedo launchers on the Sutherland type?

I just don't see any torpedo launchers at all on the model. Are they in the saucer? Are they tucked into the sides of the deflector dish? Are they the extra wedges on the nacelle pylons?

I just don't see them anywhere.

On the Sutherland? They are on that 'mission pod' thing. That's where they fire in 'Redemption part two'

Then where are they on the Phoenix, the ship that had the "AWACS" pod and killed all those Cardie ships?

There's a scene in First Contact where a Nebula's firing torpedoes, they appear to come out of a launcher nestled right between the saucer and the engineering section.

Wat? I don't even...

There's no room there. Maybe their launchers are those tiny launchers like all the new peewee launchers on the Enterprise E in Nemesis?

If the pods aren't interchangeable, then what are they? Combat pods? Extra scanners? Shit that the pork-barrel committee wanted on their starships, but it was too late in the design process to include in the main hull?

Gandalf wrote:

Skylon wrote:I don't think the writers ever got a firm hand on the Cardassian ships. Maybe they had a "strength in numbers" deal? One on one, Cardassian ships don't stand a chance against a Nebula or Galaxy, but maybe the Cardassians can pump crap tons of them out and shoot to overwhelm their opponents. If the Cardassians have vast ship building resources, it would explain how the Dominion managed to hold off most of the major powers with just Cardassian territory as a resource base.

The ways I've heard the Cardassian War described are oddly akin to the Vietnam War, but in space, somehow. They rarely engaged the Federation directly, except when they had to.

This quote from Soldiers of The Empire has more to say: "...two years I've spent on the Cardassian border. Two years of fighting guls and legates and glinns. They were cunning enemies... always had us chasing sensor ghosts and holo-projections... everything was a game with them... a plan within a plan within a plan leading into a trap."

The Federation never seemed to commit to a full scale war with the Cardies, so as a result they managed to defend their territory from an opponent who didn't have a great interesting in acquiring more. But when the Klingons invaded, the Cardassian dominoes fell like a house of cards. Checkmate.

Someone's been reading Zapp Branigan's Big Book of War, I see...

The Cardassians in DS9 always struck me as having inferior ships to the Federation, but about as many of them, and a much smaller territory to defend and launch attacks from. Considering their peerless intelligence service and effective tactics, they are a bit of a threat.

They were at their weakest in "The Wounded," but even in that episode they were a power that the Federation really didn't want to piss off. Note that in DS9 a single Galaxy or Defiant can still cripple a single Cardassian warship almost immediately, so it's not that much of a discrepancy. A Galor probably has about the same warfighting capability as a Vor'Cha, considering that identical Klingon forces (two BoPs) wore down and crippled a Vor'Cha in "Redemption" and a Galor in "Way of the Warrior." They are roughly the same size, too.

Anguirus wrote:A Galor probably has about the same warfighting capability as a Vor'Cha, considering that identical Klingon forces (two BoPs) wore down and crippled a Vor'Cha in "Redemption" and a Galor in "Way of the Warrior." They are roughly the same size, too.

I would say that that shows a Vor'cha to be considerably more powerful than a Galor. The BoPs in WotW were mere scouts, while the ones in Redemption were the B'rel-class cruisers.

^ B'rels are scouts. Virtually every BoP in filmed Star Trek is of that or a similar class. K'Vorts are the cruisers that look identical for some reason.

Actually, I checked the Wiki, and AFAIK in neither episode was the class of the BoPs established. Keep in mind that the two different class names have been used to refer to the same footage before, so it's not like it's easy to tell.

I thought the K'voorts were the ones that fired with their wings up and the B'rels were the ones that had to change into "attack formation"?

Klingon Birds of Prey are the most inconsistent ships in the whole continuity, in firepower, size and even name. Sometimes they are tiny cruisers barely above a runabout, other times a couple of them are equal to a Galaxy-class or Romulan Warbird.

It's a poor way to do more than order-of-magnitude anyway; unless we see the whole battle and understand how damage is applied, it's too unreliable. Real life isn't about hitpoints.

Uraniun235 wrote:Pfft, I could just as easily call it a huge porkbarrel scam for the contractors who make those "mission pods". Seriously, an alleged series of varying "mission pods" that are only compatible with one class of starship? That don't even all have common connecting pylons? That would consume enormous volume at starbases, even in disassembled form just by sheer dint of the hull plating and plumbing to support that superstructure? Yeah, uh-huh. The Nebula as the noble, wise plan from the poor misunderstood defense-minded admirals, against the big mean ol' commie peacenik-sponsored Galaxy. If only we could have just built AKIRA SWARM from the beginning and smote all those evil bumpheads with righteous TORPEDO SPAM.

The mission pod concept might have potential if there was actually a swarm of Nebulae out there to make storing and installing pods at starbases worthwhile. As-is, though, we see so damn few of them that for all the extra mission pods you'd have to build to actually make it possible for a Nebula to run to a starbase to refit, you could probably just as well build a bunch of smaller (and actually mission-specific) ships to run around and take care of trouble spots, which is presumably why you'd call in your Nebula ships to swap out the pods in the first place


Trying to call Nebula mission specific while at the same time arguing that it has at least as much volume as a Galaxy, built with enormous common design with the Galaxy, without any evidence to suggest that the internal arrangement of the primary hull is significantly different, seems at least somewhat absurd. It might be better in certain scenarios than an all-purpose starship (many of which appear to involve "scan the fuck out of everything") but that doesn't make it mission specific.

As built, the Nebula class can be used mission specific easier than the Galaxy class. Its easier to replace the pod than it is to replace the internals of the ship. Of course its even easier to replace the saucer of the Galaxy outright given its separation ability. It would seem that almost none of these aspects got put into use by either class. The Galaxy class appears to operate from a pretty static design with probably a few internal differences. The Nebula class at least has seen some variations, but they appear to be permanent in nature. Different pods outright. We have seen three different pod configurations. Melbourne, Sutherland, and Phoenix.

What was intended and what actually happens is another thing to consider. The Galaxy itself wasn't exactly a huge success for what it was intended to do. Original ships in the class had a horrendous record when it came to reliability. But even with the teething problems, it was built in relatively large numbers given its size (largest ship in the fleet). And "All Good Things" gives us an indication of the power plant upgrades the class has received over the years.

The Nebula class appears to have been used in more specialized roles. Maybe that was the intended design. Have a relatively common design for the whole class, piggy back the critical components with the Galaxy to further reduce cost, but give it a permanent mission capability through the use of the pods. If the pods used a common point of attachment, it would even make pod replacement theoretically possible. Though the three different pod designs had wildly different attachment methods.

I still like the concept of dedicated mission saucers for the Galaxy class. Build the stardrive section to essentially the same specs, but build a variety of saucer sections that can be used depending on the mission at hand. Carrier, transport, cargo, medical, battle, science, sensor scanning. Whatever. Its the ultimate ability to change missions while having an effectively dedicated platform to do so. And yet another good concept was just never used.

So, I just want to throw out a question and see what happens.

If one were theoretically planning to kitbash a Nebula class starship from an AMT Galaxy class model, should one go for the Melbourne look, the classic kitbashed Nebula with the two tiny nacelles on its pod as it originally appeared, or should one go for the Sutherland look, with its dynamic wedge of doom?

Now, let's say that someone had already theoretically kitbashed the galaxy into a basic, podless Nebula, which happens to look slightly more like the Melbourne class than the Sutherlans, but with the Nacelles positioned more forwards like on the Melbourne. Let us also assume that said person only has access to some model airplane and tank parts for the kitbashing, as well as some plasticard tube, which means his (or her) Nebula pod will look only vastly different from any of the canon examples. What is your advice for this person?

What should said theoretical kitbasher do with the top of his Nebula?