Galaxy & Nebula class

[James Wright]

I got to thinking about something and maybe you all can help me with an answer, I hope!
What is the maximum cargo capicity for a Galaxy class starship in metric tons?
Since the Nebula class is just a reconfigured Galaxy class design do you think the Nebula class has the same cargo capacity?
Can anybody help!?

James

 

[Unimatrix_0]

I am not sure what the exact amount for cargo capacity. I don't think that the Starship Spotter provides that information either. The cargo capacity for the Galaxy class would be larger due to the fact that it has two additional shuttlebays (2 and 3) that the Nebula does not appear to have. I do not know if on the brace that holds the upper sensor pod might have a cargo bay in one of the levels, as it has not been mentioned or shown in any episode or other material.

 

[Saquist]

Last time I check the Galaxy had a Cargo capacity of something of 700,000 tons which incidently is the same tonage of the Intrepid...so I'm skeptical but the Galaxy does measure in the millions of tons.

 

[BolianAuthor]

IDK about tonnage, but the Nebula, in theory, COULD have more capacity, because the upper aft module is interchangeable... some, like the Phoenix, have a AWACS-style sensor pod, while others, like the Sutherland, have a weapons pod... so it's possible one could place a cargo pod, and increase capacity.

 

[Saquist]

That's true.
Good Point.

 

[Timo]

I do not know if on the brace that holds the upper sensor pod might have a cargo bay in one of the levels, as it has not been mentioned or shown in any episode or other material.

Well, on the original Nebula model there's a big trapezoid on the aft surface of the brace, way larger than any shuttlebay door on a Galaxy, and it's horizontally ribbed like a rolling door would be. Of course, trapezoids make for piss-poor rolling doors... But if it's one, it may allow the loading of outsize cargo a Galaxy could never carry internally.

The Nebula model as refitted for its first movie appearance (USS Farragut) has this badass trapezoid-door-thingie divided into a low and wide lower rectangle and a narrower non-ribbed upper square, making for more functional door shapes. Still bigger than any Galaxy hatches, save for the saucertop shuttlebay. And that is also present on all Nebulas anyway.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[BolianAuthor]

Here's the aft end of the Nebula... looks like it could have a few more cargo bays...

 

[Timo]

That's the final CGI construct, it seems. It's a bit different from the Farragut physical model again, with the lowermost "cargo door" being replaced by the ship's pennant, and this "cargo door" being moved up and turned nearly horizontal. It might still be a door, though.

I sort of like best this final iteration of the ship. That is, save for those rather blatant covers over the Galaxy saucer rim impulse engine locations. OTOH, perhaps this ship does have a Galaxy saucer, modified for Nebula use, rather than a purpose-built Nebula saucer. A cost-saving measure?

Certainly the CGI makes it look as if the saucer could separate as effortlessly as it does from a Galaxy. Indeed, the placement of the pylon phaser strips is awkward in attached mode, suggesting that the Nebula might also have been designed to fight primarily in separated mode, with the saucer standing back and the stardrive section (plus dorsal module) doing the dirty work...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[BolianAuthor]

Actually, that's a physical model.

And the Nebula can't separate... any source that says it can, is pure fanwank. I know the Jackill plans, and some others show it as separating, but it's just not so... not until it's either shown on-screen, or in a future "canon" technical manual.

 

[Timo]

Why should we think it can't separate? The seam is right there for everybody to see. There's no good reason why it couldn't. There's no good reason why it shouldn't, when we know that the saucer of a Constitution is supposed to separate in emergencies, and we have seen that the saucer of a Galaxy does separate both in emergencies and in some fancy 24th century maneuvers.

Or should we dismiss as "fanwank" the ability of a Nebula to, say, launch shuttles? It's never seen on screen, either.

Whether a Nebula can effortlessly reattach its saucer is the real question. Since all the components seem identical to their Galaxy counterparts, save for the lack of impulse engines on the saucer, there doesn't seem any tech reason why the redocking shouldn't work. But perhaps it's not an operational requirement, any more than saucer solo impulse flight seems to be.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[AthanisTree]

Had thought that the entire point of the Nebula class was originally to provide a warp-capable frame to pick-up/ rescue stranded Galaxy-saucers (Can't remember if the info is from the old Enterprise-D tech manual or a game or somesuch :P ) or has fan-lore already disproved this... ?

(Do excuse my noob brashness )

Then again, given that the Yamato went boom, the Odyssey fell foul of a bug-ship and the Ent-D hit the deck quite literally, I can see the, (in theory) empty Nebula space-frames gathering dust at a phenonmenal rate...

 

[James Wright]

What kind of material would be found stored in the ships' hold of a Galaxy class starship, does the Galaxy class have a ships' hold since the ship is equipped with replicators? When replicators began to be used extensively on starships would this allow for the conversion of the ships' hold to a cargo bay?
Just curious!

James

 

[miraclefan]

Here's the aft end of the Nebula... looks like it could have a few more cargo bays...

It's funny. I've gotten to a point were I can tell what's a physical model and what's CG. This one ^ was TOO easy it's a Physical model.

 

[USS Excelsior]

As for separation for all we know a Galxy saucer could attach itself to a Nebula star drive section, and vice versa.

 

[Red Ranger]

OK, so while it's disputed, the idea that Galaxy- and Nebula-class ships share an interchangeable saucer-section is a great idea, from a production standpoint. With an intact separated saucer, all you'd need to do is dock it with another stardive section, and voila! A starship back in service. Now, has this ever been depicted in a novel or video game? And if you connect a Galaxy-class saucer with a Nebula-class stardrive, would you need to rename the ship? Or would it keep the name? -- RR

 

[IndyJones]

I like that picture, and have always liked the Nebula. But that phaser bank on the nacelle pylon looks terrible.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

OK, so while it's disputed, the idea that Galaxy- and Nebula-class ships share an interchangeable saucer-section is a great idea, from a production standpoint. With an intact separated saucer, all you'd need to do is dock it with another stardive section, and voila! A starship back in service. Now, has this ever been depicted in a novel or video game? And if you connect a Galaxy-class saucer with a Nebula-class stardrive, would you need to rename the ship? Or would it keep the name? -- RR

There was an old TNG novel, Rogue Saucer that had the Enterprise testing a different saucer section.

I built my Nebula kitbash based on a version that had a shuttlebay at the tail end. I can't find any good pics of that style now though.

I found it interesting that the conjectured registry numbers of some of the Nebula class were earlier than those of some of the Galaxy class, or at least, lower in the numbering scheme.

 

[Timo]

Well, the Nebula does look like a more compact and thus perhaps less "risky" layout for the familiar elements. Perhaps this was the original, bread-and-butter application of said tech, whereas the Galaxy was a special high performance model laid out in a bolder style and equipped with extra bells and whistles, and consequently built somewhat later and in smaller numbers?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[BolianAuthor]

Why should we think it can't separate? The seam is right there for everybody to see. There's no good reason why it couldn't. There's no good reason why it shouldn't, when we know that the saucer of a Constitution is supposed to separate in emergencies, and we have seen that the saucer of a Galaxy does separate both in emergencies and in some fancy 24th century maneuvers.

Or should we dismiss as "fanwank" the ability of a Nebula to, say, launch shuttles? It's never seen on screen, either.

Whether a Nebula can effortlessly reattach its saucer is the real question. Since all the components seem identical to their Galaxy counterparts, save for the lack of impulse engines on the saucer, there doesn't seem any tech reason why the redocking shouldn't work. But perhaps it's not an operational requirement, any more than saucer solo impulse flight seems to be.

Timo Saloniemi

This argument has been had before, and I shan't have it again... suffice it to say, you believe what you wish to believe... if it suits you to follow the school that thinks that everything ever seen in Trek can separate, then so be it. I shall stick to the strictness of what has been established on-screen, and in interviews with actual staff people.

 

[Timo]

Well, believing that it could separate is systematic. Believing that it could not is an aberration from the established norm. So you'd need some sort of an explanation for believing that it could not, but you need no explanation for believing that it could.

Timo Saloniemi