• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Nebula class schematic

B

Bill Morris

Commodore
Commodore
Here's the Nebula class schematic for the next release of LCARS 24, ready for nitpicking and corrections. There seems to be a lot of disagreement about the specs, and the various schematics to be found on the Web conflict with one another on many minor points. I looked at the photos of two filming models at Ex Astris Scientia in an attempt to resolve some of that.

Ex Astris Scientia: Nebula Class Observations
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y247/LCARS24user/NEB-LC24.png

About the mass, Starship Volumetrics:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics.html

Dimensions: Advanced Starship Design Bureau:
http://techspecs.acalltoduty.com/nebula.html

Some beauty shots, at explorermedia.net:
http://www.explorermedia.net/main/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?46


NEB-LC24.png
 
Last edited:
Very nice. The Nebula is a 'ship of the week', so it's detailing is kind of rough and underdeveloped. So, while the design is pretty neat it does suffer a bit.

Plus the bridge sucks. Why they didn't just use a redressed Galaxy bridge I have no idea. The Nebula Data commanded had a crap set for the bridge, and the DS9 one, while better, was still kinda slapped together.
 
I thought the one they used for the Nebula and Galaxy Class ships (and oddly enough, D'deridex class warbirds) on DS9 used consoles from the Excelsior bridge for the back consoles with the TNG Battle Bridge for the front.
 
I was comfortable with the usual figure of 3,309.000, but the following site gives figures based on starship volumes reported by a program that compares available meshes and stated dimensions. That puts the standard Nebula class at 7 times the volume of the 700,000-ton standard Intrepid class, resulting in the freaky 5,000,000 M.T. You don't have to drop models into water and measure displacement to see that. In Masao's dorsal-view size-comparison chart the Nebula class, with its wide saucer section, really dwarfs the intrepid class. So that part is hard to argue with. Maybe the thing to question is the famous figure of 700,000 tons for Voyager. Or is Voyager made of sterner stuff?!

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics.html
 
I have no qualms with the volume figures. But unless you know a number of other things (which can only be attained through speculation), it is not possible to determine the exact mass of these ships (short of an explicit mention on screen, which very few ships have had the benefit of.)

The 5 MT figure is claimed as a lower limit, but even that can only be true if the assumption about the constant density holds true, which there is no reason to believe that it does.

Just because the Nebula has 7 times the volume of the Intrepid does not mean it has 7 times the mass of the Intrepid. One can just as easily whip up a spreadsheet, plug in some random numbers concerning the average density of the hull, internal space, etc., and get it so that the Nebula has less than 7 times the mass.

Heck, that would probably result in a saner number, but no less speculative.
 
When I asked about the mass figure to use for my library page for the TOS Enterprise, Vance wrote "A comparitive real-world structure, the USS Nimitz, weighs in at 101,196 tons fully loaded, while actually covering more volume." So Voyager would be roughly 300,000 metric tons if of the same construction as an aircraft carrier, but the warp coils could add a lot to that.

Also, you might say there's a difference in hull mass versus interior mass, but it doesn't matter, because the Nebula class has 7 times the surface area of the Intrepid class, as well as 7 times the volume. What about relative nacelle size, which could make a difference? Well, Masao's size chart overstates the Nebula by about 10 meters in length, but look:

mass.jpg
 
LCARS 24 said:
When I asked about the mass figure to use for my library page for the TOS Enterprise, Vance wrote "A comparitive real-world structure, the USS Nimitz, weighs in at 101,196 tons fully loaded, while actually covering more volume." So Voyager would be roughly 300,000 metric tons if of the same construction as an aircraft carrier, but the warp coils could add a lot to that.
Click to expand...

I'm going to leave this part because I have no idea how it relates. Or where that 300kT figure came from.

Also, you might say there's a difference in hull mass versus interior mass, but it doesn't matter, because the Nebula class has 7 times the surface area of the Intrepid class, as well as 7 times the volume.
Click to expand...

Only works if, no doubt amongst other things, you assume that the volume is subdivided in exactly the same proportions. For example, volume of fuel.

What about relative nacelle size, which could make a difference?
Click to expand...

Certainly would if the mass of the coils is significant. If the Nebula's nacelles are the same as the Galaxy's, then the Nebula has about 13% of its volume in its nacelles. The Intrepid, only about 5.5. That would certainly put a wrench in scaling the masses purely by volume if you assume a bunch of other things, like the density of the coils is the same for all ship types, the proportion of each nacelle's mass in coils is the same for all ship types, etc..
 
Are the component parts of a Nebula class starship actually those of the Galaxy class starship? The only problem I've had is trying to figure out how a Nebula class starship doesn't measure the same width as a Galaxy class starship!?

JDW
 
I think you're right, JDW. The commonly cited figures have the length of the Nebula class greater than its width, which disagrees with the dorsal view I posted above. Rotating that and blowing it up to 464 pixels in width (Galaxy beam = 463.73) puts the Nebula image at 444 pixels for the length, making the ship about 444 meters long. Using that, I can also measure the height, based on the slightly-off 444 meters.

So that leaves:
Length: 444 m
Beam: 464 m
Height: 133 m

And the figure of 5,000,000 metric tons was based on length of 440 meters. So that would actually go up a little before trimming it. And how do you trim that by 33% (from 5,000,000 to 3,309,000)?
How about 4,747,000? It's like fiction.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I corrected the fantail (using measurements from a ventral view) and a few minor things in the cutaway, plus the figures for dimensions and mass. Anything else?

NEBOK.png
 
Last edited:
Why can't you e-mail the guy who designed the Nebula class starship and ask him some questions about the design?

JDW
 
This brings up a question that I've long had about the Nebula (which is my favorite ship in all of Trek). Where the hell are the impulse engines? They're not on the saucer or on the back of the engineering hull. Are they somehow integrated into the warp nacelles?
 
Ah, thank you. I guess I was just assuming that they would glow.

And here I thought I'd found a goof. Curse you!
 
JDW said:
Are the component parts of a Nebula class starship actually those of the Galaxy class starship? The only problem I've had is trying to figure out how a Nebula class starship doesn't measure the same width as a Galaxy class starship!?

JDW
Click to expand...

Yes. The saucer sections of the Nebula and Galaxy are IDENTICAL, save for the lesser number of windows on the Nebula. They are of the exact same size, deck count, and internal volume.

The engineering section of the Nebula is BASED on the Galaxy-Class model, but, as is obvious, is shortened. However, I would still imagine the Main Engineering section to be identical in size and layout to that of the Galaxy-Class.
 
To me the only really fundimental differences between the Galaxy and the Nebula are the Pod the lack of the neck and the nacelle position. They would have a simler internal volume.
 
The 101,000 ton figure for the Nimitz-class; is that how much seawater the ship displaces at fully-loaded weight? Wouldn't it be much higher if you to actually submerge the entire ship in water, and isn't that the figure we're looking at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top