• 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

Per Jane's Fighting Ships, a Nimitz-class is 1,040 feet long at the waterline, 1,092 feet overall, and 134 feet wide waterline/252 feet wide overall, and has a draft of 37 feet (USS Nimitz, 91,487 tons displacement fully loaded) to 39 feet (USS Ronald Reagan, 102,000 tons displacement fully loaded). Improvements and enhancements over the lifetime of the program (three decades have passed between the June 1968 date that the original Nimitz keel was laid to the Feburary 1998 date that Reagan's was laid) have resulted in more efficient use of space and allowed room for more aircraft fuel, supplies, etc, resulting in a heavier ship.

Now, barring any information to the contrary, I am to assume that the ship displaces that amount, with the overwhelming majority of the ship above the surface. If we were to completely submerge the ship, from a front-view of it, it would easily displace another three to four times that amount, as the ship flares outwards from the waterline. Probably someone has already worked that out, and is willing to post the figures...I have no knowledge of 3D modeling and am not good with numbers, so I cannot.

By way of comparison, an Ohio-class SSBN is 16,764 tons displacement surfaced, and 18,750 tons fully submerged.

Hope this helps.
 
Per page 11 of the TNGTM, there are 18 warp coils per nacelle, not the 22 shown. They appear to be spaced out in the TM, where yours are closer together.

Also, same page, Decks 10 and 11 are the largest diameter decks on the MSD (hence the ceiling windows of Ten-Forward, whereas your Deck 10 stands alone as the largest diameter deck. I also noticed it seems your saucer section bows downward a little more than the MSD of the Galaxy-class; perhaps if you make the forward section of the saucer two decks thickness instead of one deck, it will help with the perceived depth of the lower bulge of your Nebula saucer section. Your deck count of the lower portion of the saucer section matches the deck count of the TNGTM MSD, but your lower portion looked more bulbous.

Not meaning to nitpick, but thought it might help.
 
SicOne said:
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?
Click to expand...

Why are we even concerned with displacement, for a spaceship? I don't see the relationship, anyway.

1 m^3 of iron masses 7 tonnes and displaces 1 tonne of water submerged.
1 m^3 of iridium masses 22 tonnes and displaces 1 tonne of water submerged.
A 1 m^3 square box with 1 cm thick diamond walls masses 240 kg and displaces... 1 tonne of water submerged.

You start to see how this doesn't work for spaceships?
 
Well, LCARS 24 was talking about Nimitz-class displacement in some of the earlier posts, and lacking knowledge of what materials constitute a starship, mass is more difficult to determine and comparitive measurements need to be discussed. Displacement is a measurement that would be consistent, given a ship's known dimensions, assuming you were able to submerge in its entirety (with no leaks), as was discussed in a Volumetrics thread. That's why I was saying the Nimitz-class displacement is kind of a misnomer, as (1) the entire ship is not submerged, and (2) without precise waterline dimensions and knowledge of hull shape (it is not a perfect rectangle) you can't extrapolate the entire displacement. With precise dimensions and 3d modeling of a Nimitz, you may be able to determine ship's volume. Starship mMass would be good to calculate, but displacement would be more accurate.
 
Good point; but since the displacement would not give the "true" mass of the starship despite being given in kilograms or pounds, many people would be badly misled by such presentation of the data.

So why not forgo the extra complication of displacement (multiplying the cubic meters by the density of water) altogether and stick to simple volume?

Also, same page, Decks 10 and 11 are the largest diameter decks on the MSD (hence the ceiling windows of Ten-Forward, whereas your Deck 10 stands alone as the largest diameter deck).
Click to expand...

One might wish to disregard that MSD, because the windows of Ten-Forward are not on the ceiling but rather on the floor in the "real" ship. The later Sternbach blueprints correct this error (originally stemming from the fact that Probert wanted only one wide deck on the rim but the setmakers had to make the Ten-Forward set with humbler windows), rearranging the upper decks so that even though there appear to be ten rows of windows above Ten-Forward, there are in fact only nine decks there.

The single rim deck reflects original Probert intention, but a setup where there are two decks, the lower of these Deck 10, is consistent with how the Galaxy saucer "really" ended up being configured.

Timo Saloniemi
 
SicOne said:
Per page 11 of the TNGTM, there are 18 warp coils per nacelle, not the 22 shown. They appear to be spaced out in the TM, where yours are closer together.
Click to expand...

You're right. I'll change it to 18. Thanks. That's helpful.

I had it right for the Galaxy class but missed that when doing the Nebula.

ENTD.png
 
Good idea, Timo; we should use volume, not displacement.

I did not know of Probert's original intention. I had just looked at the MSD in the TNG Tech Manual and had not dug out the big blueprints of the -D to double-check; my bad.
 
LCARS 24, do you have a link to a dorsal-view size-comparison chart of all Federation ships, from Masao? You showed an overhead view in post #8 of this thread (Intrepid alongside Nebula), and was wondering if you had a link to where you got that.

Also, in post #11 of this thread, you showed an updated MSD showing stats of 444m long x 464m wide x 133m tall. You, of course, are free to show what you wish regarding stats, but I thought I would share with you some stats from "Starship Spotter" (if you don't already have it)...465m long x 467.1m wide x 140.5m tall, and 3,309,000 tons. On the Ex Astris Scientia website, there is a Nebula Comparisons article which gives favoritism over a Nebula length of 440m. It could be that the 465m figure referred to in SS is that for the Nebula with the "AWACS" pod (i.e. USS Phoenix), which overhangs the back of the ship. Anyway, do with these stats as you wish, if they work for you; just thought I'd throw them out to you. I appreciate you making your work available to us, it looks excellent.

Finally, did you create the volumetrics chart at www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics.html that you referenced? I saw Masao Okasaki's work credited both there and in one of your posts, and I'd love to talk to the guy who did the volumetrics chart, if any of you know who that is.

Thanks to those who pointed out my problem in talking about ship displacement, in terms of tons of seawater...what we were trying to talk about was volume, in cubic meters. I guess the caffeine hadn't quite kicked in yet then.
 
LCARS 24, are you working on a MSD for the Olympic-class (aka USS Pasteur from Next Gen's "All Good Things")? Now that I'd like to see!
 
Masao's dorsal-view size-comparison chart is here:

http://lcars24.com/SHIPS1.JPG

A gallery of the final versions of 21 Starfleet schematics as rendered by my LCARS system is here:

http://lcars24.com/schematics.html

That has a corrected version of the Nebula schematic. The others I have are NASA things. That gallery of Startfleet stuff will be on Cygnus pretty soon.

As JDW pointed out in post #10 of this thread, the key to finding the dimensions of the Nebula class is that its saucer section is of the same width as that of the Galaxy class, which means that none of the dimensions shown on Web sites that I could find were correct. Maybe some have been updated since.

I referred to that site on volumetrics, but I had nothing to do with making it.

And thanks for pointing out the number of coils a few months ago. I fixed that.
 
Last edited:
LCARS 24, thanks for the link to Masao's dorsal-view page.

But you never answered the question about the Olympic-class schematic...

I can certainly understand soome of the confusion on the Nebula-class dimensions; there was a large page of Ex Astris Scientia dedicated to that issue.
 
Okay, Norway, Miranda, Oberth, and Olympic. They're all on the to-do list, but programming has higher priority. It is a software package. And the Obeth doesn't seem to make much sense, not that I haven't found solutions to similar problems with other ships. But Reverand made Oberth schematics and never got things to come out right.
 
ancient said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. I wished they'd redress the ENT-D bridge for the Nebula ships, at least it makes sense for that since the ships are contemporary with each other. Hell, I wished they also redressed the TFF bridge for the ENT-C. At least the leftover bits from TUC were used in making the ENT-B bridge.
 
^^^ Your schematics are very well done. I've always found the ones for the Steamrunner class confusing however. Where are the forward torp launchers? I always assumed they were on the front where you place the shuttle bays. :confused:


EDIT: Ah nevermind, I see you placed them on the underslung pod. I like it.
 
LCARS 24, this topic was discussed over in Trek Lit, but have you come up with an MSD for the Luna-class ship? Or are working on it?
 
SicOne said:
LCARS 24, this topic was discussed over in Trek Lit, but have you come up with an MSD for the Luna-class ship? Or are working on it?
Click to expand...

Here's a Titan MSD. The guy who made it is a regular contributor to LCARS 24. I've only included canon ships in the LCARS 24 library. If I decide I want the Luna class, I'm sure he'll send to an image that I can modify to fit the style.

http://www.lcarsc.com/lcars/msd-uss-titan-ncc-80102/

You guys asked about Miranda and Oberth classes. Here they are:

MIranda
http://lcars24.com/schem22.html

Oberth
http://lcars24.com/schem23.html

Norway
http://lcars24.com/schem24.html

Hubble Space Telescope
http://lcars24.com/schem-HST.html

Two more that are almost done are the Olympic class and Gemiini space capsule. I already had MSDs of the Space Shuttle and ISS.

These were all done by others and modified by me to match the style of the rest of the library. They're mainly for my LCARS software package, but the first 21 of them are also posted at Cygnus-XI Star Trek Blueprint Database. The rest will be added.

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/lcars24.php
 
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