Talk:Nebula class/archive

Deflector launcher

Deflector launcher

Forestin, the torpedo launcher above the main deflector is seen in Star Trek: First Contact, which is why it is included in the ship's stats, and why it is on this page. I went back to the scene to make sure. As far as I know, we have only seen the weapons pod fire forward, never back. -- DarkHorizon

As far as I remember there was no Nebula in FC. also neather the specs or the studio model ever showed any louncher above the deflector (check the nebula thread on general trek on SCN). Also that we have never seen it doesn´t mean that it doesn´t exist. after that, most things in trek wouldn´t exist, like capt. april of the NCC 1701. --Forestin/USS Esmeralda

Battle sequence at Sector 001 - its behind the Enterprise-E as she fires her phaser bank, right after Picard says "Fire". It launches two photons from just above the main deflector. I would screencap, but don't have the capability. DITL says the studio model has one directly above the deflector. -- DarkHorizon

If you look closely on this pic (http://scn.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x/,s,17910131,a,ga,ul,982004575,ic,Y/Nebula_under.jpg) especially on the leeds, from DS9, you will see that it hasn´t an torp launcher above the deflector. also if the nebula on FC fired 2 torp. that doesn´t mean that there only 2. the E-E also fired only from the quantum torpedo launcher on the bottom of the saucer, or at least that was only seen, and that doesn´t mean that there aren´t more. --Forestin/USS Esmeralda

No, I'm not saying there aren't more, what I'm saying is that it shows there is a single launcher above the deflector, in addition to the 2+ on the weapons pod, because that's where the torps are fired from. See these two images. You removed it from the article, which is why I reverted your change. -- DarkHorizon

Sorry, I´m unable to ses the pics. I suggest we move over to SCN. Could you make a thread since I´m temporarily unable to open the standard dial window. --Forestin/USS Esmeralda

It's OK. I've fixed the links, they were incorrect before. -- DarkHorizon

Guess you´re right then --Forestin/USS Esmeralda

In some prints of First Contact, this ship does not appear. On my first VHS copy there was no Nebula-class seen at any point in the battle with the Borg at Sector 001, and on a pirated copy I also viewed there was also no Nebula-class; however I have viewed the film on DVD and there is a Nebula-class vessel indeed firing at the Borg cube when the Enterprise leads the fleet is concentrating it's fire at Picard's recommended co-ordinates. (Breakinguptheguy 02:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Dr. Bashir...

I added an appearance by the Nebula from "Doctor Bashir, I Presume." Nothing special about that, except that no one else on the Internet has apparently noticed there was a Nebula-class in that episode. It's the ship Dr. Zimmerman is set to leave on near the end. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.158.255.162.

Modules

I've removed a reference to the 'sensor module.' While its a likely conjecture, there is no canon evidence for its purpose, i have been referring to it as the USS Phoenix configuration. The torpedo/weapons module references i would leave, since we canonically know that pod houses a torpedo launcher. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainmike (talk • contribs).

Ship type

Are Nebulas really explorers? They seem too small to be explorers. They could be a light explorer, but I think that shes probably a Medium Crusier, based on the amount of them in starfleet. Explorers are typically built in smaller numbers. If someone could explain where they have been called explorers before, that would be great. Otherwise, it should be reclassified as a Medium Crusier. -- BMS 04:22, 13 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 06:09, 13 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Is that also the source for the mass, crew, max speed, etc? If so, it should be mentioned on the page somewhere --Gvsualan 19:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems almost certain that the Nebula is NOT an Explorer class vessel. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what weight is given to the entries in the 'Star Trek Starship Spotter' guide but it clearly states: "The Nebula class....could more readily serve in smaller in-systems, in patrol, tactical and support roles." Clearly, the 'little sister' of the Galaxy-class was meant for a different purpose than it's larger sibling.- Ensign Epimetheus 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ever heard of the USS Prometheus (the Nebula one)? This ship was clearly chosen for a science mission in DS9, so it is really unlikely that it belongs only to transport and observation missions. Just factor in of which size this class is, and look at the weaponary without the tactical module. This is definitely no "tactical cruiser". --Memory 20:43, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, Memory, but that is actually a bad example. The Prometheus was not originally supposed to be a Nebula class, at least that was not the original intention of the writer. According to the script it was "a Federation science vessel, not in any way noteworthy or obtrusive." Later clarified as being "a science vessel with a small crew. A human Lt. Commander (Piersall) in charge, plus four N.D. Starfleet officers." A better example might be the USS Lexington and the mission profile that ship was fulfilling (spending a year on a charting mission). Contrarily, consider the USS Phoenix and how threatening it was made out to be-- loose in Cardassian space-- plus the simple fact it destroyed a Cardassian warship without the benefit of shields suggests in more that a simple science vessel. I think that all of those examples more or less parallel missions or expectations of a Galaxy class, and very likely support the fact that a Nebula, too, could be classified as an explorer. Either way I don't see how being "too small" plays a factor in that, because it is one of the largest Federation starship classes. Even the Excelsior is smaller and that ship spent 3 years away from the Federation studying gaseous anomolies...--Alan del Beccio 22:44, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Reference to the class as small in any sense is not particularly accurate. As the last poster commented, it is bigger than the Excelsior class, and the mission profiles generally seem similar to the Galaxy class. As a perspective on overall size, it is not really much smaller than the Galaxy class at all. For the most part it has all of the same structures, at about the same sizes. The components have just been pulled closer in together, compressing its length, and to a lesser extent, the height.24.69.167.159 02:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Whichever user (and my apologies for forgetting who it was by the time I began to type this) said that the Nebula-class was likely a more economical alternative to the Galaxy-class is probably most correct. Remember that the Galaxy-class ships are, in most respects, two starships affixed together. They have literally two (sometimes more) of everything except warp drive.

The Nebulas were very likely a solution to the problem of the amount of time and materials needed to build a Galaxy- shorten the time needed by building one starship instead of two. Build a saucer section, and then affix to it whatever is needed to make a complete vessel (i.e. warp drive).

In other words, of course Nebula is an Explorer- it has all of the same features as a Galaxy, except for the ability to routinely separate and reconnect the primary and secondary hulls (and Galaxy was the first Explorer to have this design feature, all previous Explorers did not).

Really, there are only two drawbacks to this arrangement:

1. Nebula's hull geometry likely isn't as efficient as Galaxy's, with the resultant slight discepancy in maximum warp speed between the two (9.5 for Nebula (from DS9) vs. 9.6 for Galaxy (from TNG Technical Manual));
2. the inability to routinely separate the ship (though the Nebulas likely retain the old-fashioned ability to jettison the secondary hull in the event of a catastrophic warp drive failure).

I would imagine the Nebulas don't have Galaxy's dolphin tank, either, but you never know! Roundeyesamurai 08:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Rick Sternbach, the section of the DS9 TM that deals with spacecraft should be ignored, because the editiors at Pocket Books decided to re-write that section to their own liking, without Rick's or his co-authors knowledge, and as a result, most of the vessel descriptions and stats are totaly wrong. So using the discription of the Nebula as an Explorer from that source I think is un-wise. For what its worth, according to Mike Okuda, the Nebula Class is a "Light Cruiser." User:Modelshipbuilder 2:00pm EST sept. 6 2006

Unfortunetly, the entirety of the DS9 TM is considered a useable resource by the content and resource policies. There is a talk page for that, soif you want that to be changed, I would suggest bringing it up there. I might even support you on it ;) --OuroborosCobra ^talk 18:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still finding my way around the site. lol User:modelshipbuilder 2:52pm EST sept. 6 2006

Removed

• The Nebula class starship is a modest ship. These ships were built as an inexpensive solution due to the high costs associated with the Galaxy-class. The Nebula class ship was like the Galaxy in many ways, but weapons are weaker. The ship's hull is centered in the saucer section. This trait makes the ship more manueverable than the Galaxy class. Some Nebula class ships are not equiped with weapons. Nebula class ships have participated in many Federation conflicts including Battle of Wolf 359, the attempted invasion of Earth in 2373, and other minor Alpha Quadrant conflicts. Nebula class ships have participated in the Dominion War. It's rumored that many Nebula class starships exist.

...is what I moved here from the page, cause it seems to be speculation. That last sentence certainly catches the eye. - AJHalliwell 01:23, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following:

• Whether it is by a different model design or intentional, there are variants on a Nebula class's engineering hull design. The Phoenix has a structure above the deflector dish that suggests the presence of a photon launcher. Most Nebula class ships lack this structure. It appears that the Phoenix was among a select few designed for tactical purposes. The Sutherland was a mainstray Nebula class, and has launchers on its third structure. That pod is the norm for the Nebula class norm, but it isn't the only kind.

This paragraph, with the possible exception of the first sentence, seems entirely speculative. I wasn't sure whether to add it to a background section, so I placed it here. --From Andoria with Love 20:08, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I also removed:

• As both classes are named after large celestrial bodies, it is safe to assume that these ships have the same developing organization. The ship can serve many roles, like its inspiration, the Miranda class.

Pure speculation. --From Andoria with Love 20:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Pod launcher

According to the Star Trek Communicator #154, the Nebula-class has one torpedo-launcher to the front and one to the back and not just one, as the article says. Instead, there is only one in the equippment-module, which, as a matter of fact, is not neccessarily a sensor-module but does have sensor palets (again, according to the Star Trek Communicator). - Perth

The "torpedo launchers in the 'weapons pod'" statement seems like something from a video game/card game. What the hell is "the weapons pod"? Next thing you know, someone will claim that there's "15 torpedo launchers" up there and give a giant list of all of the ordnance carried, which is basically a list of every type of weapon ever mentioned on-screen and a few items from "fan pages".

The number of torpedo tubes seems pretty apparent- one in the front, and one in the back- or "fore and aft", if you feel like being nautical. Roundeyesamurai 08:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, yet another person (in this case, "Hazzer") has edited in the "weapons pod" statement:

• "The ships also had the weapons pod for extra firepower during the Dominion war battles."

Let's resolve this once and for all- does anyone have any canon reference to a "weapons pod"? I have never seen it. Roundeyesamurai 23:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the Sutherland fire torpedoes from the pod in it's TNG episode ('Redemption', I think)? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedSavageWarrior (talk • contribs).

I don't recall- screencap, anyone?

Likewise, is there any canon reference to that portion of the ship being modular, removeable, etc.? Aside from the fact that we've seen a few different configurations of it, that is. I find it hard to believe that Starfleet would have a stockpile of "pods", which are the size of some starships, specifically for the purpose of fitting to (only) Nebula-class vessels, for specific applications. That would be like the US Navy having a stockpile of "pods" the size of frigates, for attachment to a particular class of aircraft carrier, for specific applications. However appealing it sounds to RPG'ers, it's highly unlikely.

We can essentially rule out any sort of pod, let alone a "weapons pod". If the Sutherland had a torpedo tube there, cool. This continual nonsense about "6 torpedo launchers", "12 torpedo launchers", "15 torpedo launchers", "dozens of torpedo launchers for +37,000 damage points", and so forth, is just ridiculous. Roundeyesamurai 21:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pod launcher

Heres a screencap from 'Redemption Part 2' of the Sutherland firing torpedoes from the front of the pod. It fires a total of three torpedoes from that location. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedSavageWarrior (talk • contribs).

OK, cool. Since we've established that there is a torpedo tube there, and since it is both unreasonable and unestablished that that section of the ship is a removeable "pod", we can at least omit references to a "pod" from the article, and presume that that section (and the torpedo launcher) is a permanent fixture. Roundeyesamurai 14:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should take out all references to the term 'pod' as its probably the best way of referring to it. Taking the removeable parts would probably work as long as its made clear that although there are several options on rear configuration (pod shapes etc), once the ship is built, it's stuck with that pod. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedSavageWarrior (talk • contribs).

"Pod" refers or implies that it isn't a permanent fixture. If we're in agreement that it's almost certainly a permanent fixture, and that Starfleet stays true to naval terminology as much as practicable, then the correct term would be "superstructure". That would also be the closest applicable engineering term. Roundeyesamurai 14:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

When the stats box says two torpedo launchers is that the one that's part of the pod and the one that's between the deflector dish and the saucer section that seen in Star Trek: First Contact? http://www.trekmania.net/the_fleet/utopia/screencap_analyses4.htm Scroll down, you'll see a torpedo being fired from this other launcher. --70.225.168.15 03:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be a permanent attachment, but there is a possibility that the "pod" may be only semi-permanent and occasionally changed when the vessel undergoes a refit. They could cut off the original "pod" and weld on another one, as an easy way of keeping the Nebulas up-to-date and simple to refit- for example, many originally built with a sensor pod could have been updated to the one with a photon torpedo tube for increased firepower before or doing the dominion war. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.88.158.141.

20th Century naval practice supports this. Certain classes of the ship have major modifications to large structures. The 688-class submarine was modified with twelve vertical missile tubes added in the bow, while other ships were given new RADAR or new engines. Some have even been converted from battlecruisers to aircraft carriers. These usually required a major redesign, with earlier ships requiring a long stay in drydock for retrofitting. A large structure on top of the hull would not be too difficult to replace, remembering that the Galaxy class can split in half and reconnect later. However, I would imagine that it does not happen very often.--Indefatigable 23:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nebula/Galaxy saucer comparison

As I just noticed, and have noticed the past while, some people do get confused and think the Nebula class utilizes a Galaxy class saucer. This is both right and wrong, let me explain. The overall shape and size of the actual saucer is the same size as a Galaxy class. However, the Nebula class features less crew quarters than that of a Galaxy class (In most versions). Additionally, Nebula class Bridges and corridors are totally different than those of Galaxy classes. So overall, Nebulas may have a similiar saucer to that of Galaxys (Or is that Galaxies...interesting), but they aren't the same. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 01:38, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

When I posted that it was the same as the Galaxy class saucer, I meant the same width, not the same saucer. Because the saucer width is the widest part of both the Nebula and Galaxy class, shouldn't we update the listing on the Nebula page? It keeps getting reverted. HaganeNoKokoro 01:58, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I must emphasize that we should not use the widths from the non-canon specs in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual -- please do not add data to this article from the DS9 Tech Manual -- even though it is created by the production staff the data within is not derived from the show, and seems incorrect. The best bet for figuring the size of the Nebula class would be to use the sizes of the Galaxy or Nebula class vessels that were actually established in dialogue or seen/used onscreen --Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 02:36, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Which is why I want to change the current listed width. 318m is from the DS9 tech manual and, by all evidence, isn't right. HaganeNoKokoro 03:04, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Just for the heck of it, I'll repost what I posted on the talk page of AJHalliwell, explaining why the Nebula class saucer is the same width as the Galaxy class:

"While the Nebula class is a more economical alternative to the Galaxy and smaller overall, all establishing data shows it to be the same width as the Galaxy class. In side by side pictures (to be found in the various encylcopedia's), it is clear that although the saucer is shorter (height) than that of the Galaxy, it is the same length. Further, all establishing shots of the Nebula show its saucer to be the same oval shape from above or below as that of the Galaxy. The figure you are using comes from the blurb on the Nebula class in the DS9 technical manual. Unfortunately, none of these entries are reliable. They tell us that the Galaxy is 195m tall (as opposed to the correct 138 found on this site), that the old style Klingon battleship is more than 300 (as opposed to the 214-228 figure found in the encyclopedias and other sources), and that a Constitution variant that is composed of nacelles attached directly to the connecting interhull (without a secondary hull) is 364m long, when the Constitution refit is only 305m. There is so much blatantly wrong about these entries, particularly in regards to scale, that they can not be taken as canon. From a direct observation of the Nebula class herself, we can tell that she is about as wide as she is long. Therefore, if she is 442m long, she has to be about that wide or a little wider. A figure of less than 75% of the length certainly makes no sense."

– The preceding unsigned comment was added by HaganeNoKokoro (talk • contribs).

From all the info i have on the nebula class, the actual model was peiced together from one of the ncc 1701-d models, so the saucer would be the EXACT same size. They bugetary constraints forced the staff to just hack up a model of the Enterprise D to make this ship. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by KetracelWhiteJunkie (talk • contribs).

Enzo Aquarius- Why would there be "fewer quarters" in the Nebula saucer section? They still need room for guests, evacuations, temporary on-take of additional personnel for specific missions (such as colonization), and so forth. I would imagine they have the same number of cabins as Galaxy saucers, but not the secondary hull quarters that Galaxys have. Roundeyesamurai 08:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Kitbash of course but I would imagine, given that the saucer sections all serve very similar purposes, that that part of starfleet ships might just be "mass produced". By which I mean, made in quantity at a dedicated facility, and then later attached to various warp sections as those portions get created at various yards. It doesn't necessarily appear this way, but it would save on economies of scale and allow teams of saucer experts to focus on doing just that without working around other crews. In all the different series, I see several kinds of ship with one kind of saucer, I think it means they are created separately and then merged and given a name. But, given that the majority of weapons on many classes are on the saucer, I would imagine a battle in a system with a "saucer yard" could be nasty, as it could effectively have a large number of powerful sublight ships waiting around for warp sections. They would be fine orbital defense until they got merged to warp engines. As for accomodations, that is likely simply a matter of the partitioning of internal space; more sensors could also mean more labs and offices, etc for researchers. Fewer accomodations doesn't mean the habitable volume is less, it might simply mean it's used for more things. --JCoyote 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: HaganNoKokoro: Agreed. Assuming the saucer is the same width as the Galaxy's, that would put the Nebula at 464m wide, and 447m long, give or take a few meters. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.253.11.

Appearances

Are these correct? ("These" being the order the episodes are currently presented it) – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tough Little Ship (talk • contribs).

There are several discussions on this actually in various talk pages, but, yes, they are to be listed in chronological (or production) order, not grouped by series. It gives a "historical" perspective on when they appeared. --Alan del Beccio 00:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And that has since changed and this subsection is obsolete. --Alan 23:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"With additional warp nacelles"

In this article there is a photograph of a model that has 4 nacelles. The image claims the model is from TNG's Future Imperfect, but I don't remember this ship in the episode. Did I miss it or should this image be removed from this page? --Sloan47 07:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The model was seen in that episode on a table in Capt. Will Riker's ready room. The image is either a screencap or an on-set still photograph by the art supervisors. ---- Captain M.K.B. 07:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I guess my TNG skills are getting rusty. ;) --Sloan47 07:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you have a valid point -- if the source of our reference isn't explained in the article, then it needs to be improved with that info. -- Captain M.K.B. 08:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection of the desk model -- I'm hard-pressed to say it features a secondary hull, suggesting it's not a Nebula-class ship. We have precedent that seemingly minor changes may, or may not qualify an onscreen design as a truly separate ship class. Consider the Soyus versus the Miranda classes, or the with-rollbar and without-rollbar variants of the Miranda as counter-examples of this confusion. I'd be willing to say that if the model [i]doesn't[/i] have a secondary hull, it'd be a significant enough departure from the class design to not be considered a Nebula-class ship. I'm also reticent to call it canonical in the mainstream sense, since 'Future Imperfect' depicts a fantasy alternate timeline. Ereiid 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nebula/Miranda = Galaxy/Constitution analogy

I removed:

The Nebula-class and Galaxy-class starships can be seen as having a similar relationship to the Miranda-class and Constitution-class starships of the 23rd century, with the former being the more science-orientated and the latter being more tactical.

This analogy is not right. The only thing that is valid in this comparison is the position of the nacelles. Otherwise, the Nebula had a secondary hull, the Miranda did not. A closer analogy might be the Excelsior-class with the Curry-type, maybe. Also, the Galaxy/Constitution/Miranda/Nebula mission types all varied, and really, if you weigh their appearances accordingly, they all seemed to more or less equally share science/tactical roles. Just look at all those classes that appeared in the Dominion War. --Alan 00:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I edited out of turn but it seems to me that the connection between the Miranda-class and Constitution-class starships is very similar to the Nebula-class and Galaxy-class ones. The Miranda is a smaller starship than the Constitution but clearly modelled on similar design elements, most notably the saucer section. Moreover, the Nebula and Galaxy share saucer sections and warp nacelles. Clearly both the Miranda and Nebula are more science-based due to their lack of real tactical power and the ability for the Nebula to be outfitted with an extensive sensor array. The Constitution and Galaxy, meanwhile, are more suitable for tactical missions that involve science analysis - as shown by the five year mission of the TOS and the entire run of TNG. Care to comment? Benbristol 11.19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I already addressed the similarities above. But I what I would like to know is where it is stated that a Miranda is less powerful than a Constitution? "Power" is a relative term, since the Reliant and Enterprise clearly had the same armament's. So if indeed, as you say, the Enterprise was more powerful, then why did the Miranda remain in service while the Connies were ultimately retired? Also, where was it stated that the Miranda or for that matter the Nebula "more" science based? The Enterprise did more than its share of science missions, and only the Reliant was really ever shown being explicitly on a science mission, while every Miranda appearing in DS9 season 5, 6, 7 was engaged in various fleet actions. The Enterprise-D did more than it's fair share of science missions, and the Nebbie was shown in more engagements than science missions for all of their appearances, and really, what indication is there that the Nebbies lacked tactical power and an extensive sensor array? Only the Phoenix had anything that might have resembled a sensor platform on it, and despite the lack of the alternate platform that the Sutherland had (which had additional photon torpedo launcher), it (the Phoenix) still made a more than successful strike on Cardassian targets in its' appearance. So again, I'm really not sure what proof you have that supports one side over the other when I see no indication of that. --Alan 13:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Constitution:Miranda::Galaxy:Nebula analogy is something that should be addressed. There's analogy is stronger than just nacelle placement, it's also the rollbar. The mission types are all speculation, but the visual comparison is pretty clear. If you want to throw in Excelsior & Curry into the mix, fine, but that seems much weaker if for no other reason, a curry is seen exactly once. Hell, I'd even bring the Soyuz-class into the mix, but that's more of a Miranda thing. 71.244.174.92 05:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Whose favorite?

Some episode background informations (The Changing Face of Evil) claim this ship type is a fan favorite. I thought I may not be alone in thinking that this is the ugliest ship in the entirety of the Star Trek series.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.214.22.24.

You are by definition not alone. Not 100 % of all fans have the Nebula-class as their favourite. I happen to be one of them who likes the Nebula-class. But still, I think that polls created by the companies sending star trek, and on StarTrek.com, where viewers had the chance to vote on their favourite, the winner, maybe!, was the Nebula-class?- Örlogskapten. Qapl'a! 08:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)