Why couldn't the Feds be copying the Roms? We tend to assume the espionage, or even just the flow of information, goes only one way --radially outward from the Federation. I doubt this to be the case. Even if the notion of a compact saucer comes from the Romulan encounter by NX-01, it's still Romulan influence. Of course, one could argue that the NX-01 was already a Miranda-like design.
I've been doing a series of calculations concerning the possible fuel tank volumes of a TOS Rom BOP, the kinds of fusion fuels she might use and their implications, both as a warp vessel and as a straight-up, unmodified fusion rocket. The most interesting implications of these calculations is that a rocket's range increases as the percentage of fuel mass is increased, but that of warp ship increases as the mass of the fuel. This is to say that a large and small rocket using the same fuel with the same efficiencies can have exactly the same ranges if they have the same percentage of mass dedicated as fuel. A warpship, however, seems to be limited by the total amount of fuel it carries. Thus smaller ships using the same fuel at the same efficiencies can not hope to have the same range as a large ship, though she may have the same max speed. Of course, our knowledge concerning the equations of warp power usage is basically nil.
Forcing monospaced font? Is there a way, to anyone's knowledge, to force at least part of my post into a monospace font? I would like to post some rocket-power-usage tables here but the regular font makes it difficult to understand. Example: If you copy and paste the above into your favourite text editor and change the font into something monospaced, you should find it lined up and easy to read. I have seven such tables I'd like to post and most of them are too large to make sense of without monospace. Suggestions?
I always thought htis ship was smaller than the primary hull- with maybe a 45 man crew - again the submarine hand was played really hard. I always wondered about other romulan ships
TOS Rom BOP as a pure fusion rocket Before I begin, I had to transfer the previous gif animation of the BOP and the Miranda here. ...... This conversation made me reconsider the difference in energy intake between Warp Drive and Newtonian Drive, aka Rocket Propulsion, aka Impulse. (This latter is an assumption I adhere to. See my previous post on this thread concerning my assumptions.) Calculating the energy requirements of a Star Trek warp drive needs quite a few assumptions. And I will get into this in a later post, when I feel more comfortable with my calculations. But we *have* the equations to predict how a fusion rocket will act, even under the influence of special relativity, and it requires fewer assumptions. To understand what I'm talking about below, you need to look at "BOP-Rocket_Tables.txt". It has a short introduction to why rockets have the specific limitation they do. But more importantly, it itemizes the results of a series of calculations I did to get a grasp the limitations of a BOP fusion rocket. To view the tables in the file you'll need a text editor that allows you to turn off word-wrap and that has a monospaced font. Your browser might display it well in a new tab. My firefox does, but who knows... Please don't attack my opinions without looking through and understanding the tables in this text file. Below are my speculations from those calculations. With some google searchers and some approximations, I have learned that military sea vessels have densities on the order of 100 kg/KL --some are much more, some are a little less, but this is a good average. A compared to jumbo jets which are around 50 kg/kL --again, some more, some less. I therefore speculate the density of a Rom Bop is between 50 kg/kL and 100 kg/kL. Let's say 75 kg/kL. [Scenario D in the "empty masses of a BOP" table.] (Remember that a kilo-liter is the same as a cubic meter. I use "kL" because it's an easier abbreviation than m^3.) Given the (R) ratio table, a BOP rocket will likely use the nacelles, wings and the hull's bottom curvature for fuel storage, giving a fuel-to-total volume-ratio of about 1/3. [Scenario 4 in the fuel volume table.] (It is perfectly possible a "real" BOP-rocket would dedicate more of its volume to fuel. I did not calculate for this, however.) So, cross-referencing scenario [D4] with the d(V) table and the best fuel-density/fusion-cycle combinations, from better to worse, appear to be: 1) Deuterated Propane / (D->Ni56) > 13%c 2) Hydrated Propane / (p->Ni56) > 12%c 3) Liquid Deuterium / (pCatD) > 4.6%c 4) Liquid Deuterium / (CatDD) > 3.5%c 5) Liquid Deuterium+Tritium / (DT) > 3.5%c 5) Liquid Hydrogen / ppI > 2.7%c 6) Liquid Helium / (He3) < 2.7%c 7) Liquid Deuterium / (DD) > 1.8%c However, in order of difficulty, hardest to easiest, the fusion cycles can be listed as follows: 1) (p->Ni56) 2) (D->Ni56) 3) (ppI) 4) (pCatD) 5) (CatDD) 6) (He3) 7) (DD) 8) (DT) Thus the reaction (ppI) doesn't have what it takes: if you can do (ppI), you'd probably be able to do (pCatD) and you wouldn't bother. (At least not for a rocket. I've yet to find out what Warp has to say.) I should also mention that (DT) fusion, by far the easiest of the fusion cycles, puts most of its released energy into the momentum of a chargeless neutron, which is difficult to get energy from if all you have the electric fields which a burgeoning technology is likely to be limited to. Thus, (IMHO) the likely evolution of fusion rockets in fuel and cycles is: 1st) L(D)/(DD) 2nd) L(He3)/(He3) 3rd) L(D)/(CatDD) 4th) L(D)/(pCatD) 5th) L(D)/(D->Ni56) 6th) (C3D8)/(D->Ni56) For my money, the (pCatD) reaction is my bet for a TOS Rom BOP rocket. If you factor in efficiencies less than 100% as well as some energy being syphoned off for other things, you get a total d(V) between 2 and 3%c, which is pretty damned good. But it's not the best of the best, giving the Romulans further fusion fuel combinations to research. If she were powered by deuterized propane, however, she could have a total d(V) of around 10%c, even factoring in inefficiencies and other power drains. But I see this as a final step before the introduction of artificial quantum singularities. It should be noted that the (D->Ni56) cycle is the same cycle as the (p->Ni56) cycle save the first step, which turns protons into deuterium. (The multi-staged fusion cycles are not expounded upon in the tables. It seemed an unnecessary step, more likely to bore than edify.) In the process of turning deuterium into nickel, Carbon must be created and burned. Thus the carbon in the hydrocarbon fuels are also fused into Ni56 in these fuel cycles. This means not only that all the fuel is burned but that, by creating carbon from hydrogen, it is possible to create the storage hydrocarbon through nuclear and chemical processes. This hydrogen could be from the interstellar medium. Also note that though the total energy output of carbon burning is much less than hydrogen burning, carbon helps to make the fuel more dense, giving it higher energy densities than hydrogen alone --be it protium or deuterium. There are, of course, heavier hydrocarbons than propane and a cursory glance at the d(V) table should demonstrate that there is an eigenvalue that balances higher energy-densities of large hydrocarbons with their lower d(M). Indeed, I know room temperature RP-1, with an average chemical component of about (C12H24), has already crossed this balance compared to 100K propane. None the less, I really can't be bolloxed to find the exact balance point, as finding it would entail calculating densities by first principals instead of looking them up in text books. And I'm just too lazy for this. Another thing I have not gone to the trouble of calculating is the outcome of storing one's hydrogen fuel in "ultra dense" form. The announcement in 2009 and 2010 of discovering hydrogen --both light and heavy, aka protium and deuterium-- in its "Rydburg matter" forms indentured quite a bit of speculation about the ability to store hydrogen at densities on the order 100e6 kg/kL. This would drastically increase the calculated abilities and therefore drastically change any conclusions made. However, I did not calculate for ultra dense hydrogen for several reasons. First, while I was doing the calcs I didn't think of it. Second, after I thought of it, I realized I'd have to do half again as much work as I'd already done to include it in the tables. Thirdly, we know neither Ent-D nor Voyager used ultra-dense Rydburg states to store their deuterium. They used liquid deuterium. And though there are no information about how the Romulans store their fuel during TOS, that the Federation doesn't use this method during TNG despite it's obvious advantages indicates it's not easy to make it work. So, I'm using this third reason as an excuse not to have do the work to include it in the tables. In any case, I'd guess a TOS Rom BOP Rocket would use liquid deuterium as fuel, burn the fuel in the (pCatD) fusion cycle and have a d(V) of on the order of 2%c. Certainly other possibilities exist, this is just what I would choose from a story-telling perspective. However, her d(V) is not likely to be more than 20%c. (Calculating for 100% efficiency, using deuterated propane as fuel, 1100 tonnes as an empty weight and everything but the "Fin" and "Bridge" filled with fuel, the outcome was 22.8%c. However, this calculation left no room for an engines in the main hull, just tankage and is therefore unlikely in the extreme.) My final statement on this subject is that I find it unlikely the TOS Rom BOP was a pure Fusion rocket. She's just too slow compared to a warp vessel; just too limited. She might stil be STL, meaning that "impulse" is not fusion rocketry but a kind of reactionless STL drive. But she's probably not a pure fusion rocket. ...... I hope to post similar calculations I've done concerning a fusion powered warp BOP soon.
Re: Forcing monospaced font? Yes, use the [ CODE ] [ /CODE ] tags: Code: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |..BOP.Small...||.....BOP.Small......| |.LOA:....68.m.||.Hull:....14,000.kL.| |.BOA:....91.m.||.Bridge:.....450.kL.| |.DOA:....22.m.||.Fin:........160.kL.| |..Main.Hull...||.Wing:.....3,500.kL.| |.Lenth:..66.m.||.Nacc:.....2,000.kL.| |.Beam:...50.m.||.Bott:.....1,400.kL.| |.Draft:..11.m.||.Total:...21,000.kL.| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My God, zDarby, I hope you're actually an engineer or something. This is far more math than I'm used to. That said, I'm enjoying your finding thus far. Also, being a graphically-minded fellow, that bird-of-prey/Miranda gif is rather compelling, though I do feel they need not be the exact same scale.
No. I'm not an engineer. I was studying to be one: a rocket engineer. But I dropped out very early in my studies. (It's a long story no one, not even I, care about.) But what that really means is I'm not afraid of numbers. (In fact, I have a long boring speech I give to all those I tutor in math about it being a language. No one ever listens.) .... The calculations were time-consuming, don't get me wrong... and they were tedious and repetitive. But they weren't hard... Just time-consuming, tedious and repetitive... And they were worth it. I learned quite a bit about what a Rom BOP could and could not be. If she's a rocket, she has to be a pretty darn advanced one. Not impossible....Far from impossible. But I'm not sure I buy it. Thanks for the complement about the BOP/Miranda gif. I was excited when I looked at them superimposed in 3d. But the gif made me go, "Ah...Damn....It was such a good theory!" And I've done most of the calcs for a fusion powered warp BOP. Now I have to write up something to describe all those damnedable numbers. That will take about as much time as it took to do the calcs....And I had to do them twice. By the way, your avatar makes me want to go into a transe and then into an epileptic fit.
I figured I'd post the base of my warp power calculations. The table below is measured from the warp chart found in the ex-astris-scientia encyclopedia's entry for warp factor under "W"; which, in turn, was a recreation of the warp-power curve found in the TNG Tech Manual. Thus the information is directly applicable to the Galaxy class only. How the warp-power scales for other ships is up for interpretation. However my investigations thus far indicate that if one speculates the curve does not scale to ship size, the numbers work rather well. I can make logical arguments for and against this speculation. Even so, I always use this speculation as an assumption in my warp power calcs so that they can easily be converted later when a better scaling factor is discovered. Here's wikipedias' rendition of the graphic...It has much less resolution: It's the yellow/orange curve I measured. I can describe my methodology to anyone who is interested. You can trust the numbers up to about two significant digits, but the table has three.... So I'm not perfectly scientific. So sue me! Warp Power Table: Code: ___________________________________________________ | | watt | speed| Power | M/AM | | | \coch | *c | watts | g/s | |=========|==========|======|==========|==========| |1wf hump | 14 e9 | 1c | 14 e9 | 166 e-6| |1.0wf | 220 e6 | 1c | 220 e6 | 2.45e-6| |1.1wf | 240 e6 | 1.37 | 330 e6 | 3.67e-6| |1.2wf | 290 e6 | 1.84 | 532 e6 | 5.93e-6| |1.3wf | 350 e6 | 2.4 | 839 e6 | 9.33e-6| |1.4wf | 460 e6 | 3.07 | 1.41e9 | 15.7 e-6| |1.5wf | 700 e6 | 3.86 | 2.7 e9 | 30 e-6| |1.6wf | 1.7e9 | 4.79 | 8.14e9 | 90.6 e-6| |1.7wf | 6.2e9 | 5.86 | 36.3 e9 | 404 e-6| |1.8wf | 24 e9 | 7.09 | 170 e9 | 1.89e-3| |1.9wf | 96 e9 | 8.5 | 816 e9 | 9.08e-3| |=========|==========|======|==========|==========| |2wf hump | 200 e9 | 10 | 2 e12| 22.25e-3| |2.0wf | 2.2e9 | 10 | 22 e9 | 145 e-6| |2.1wf | 2.5e9 | 11.9 | 29.75e9 | 331 e-6| |2.2wf | 3.1e9 | 13.8 | 42.8 e9 | 476 e-6| |2.3wf | 3.8e9 | 16 | 60.8 e9 | 676 e-6| |2.4wf | 5.1e9 | 18.5 | 94.3 e9 | 1.05e-3| |2.5wf | 8.0e9 | 21.2 | 170 e9 | 1.89e-3| |2.6wf | 16 e9 | 24.2 | 387 e9 | 4.31e-3| |2.7wf | 47 e9 | 27.4 | 1.29e12| 14.3 e-3| |2.8wf | 180 e9 | 30.9 | 5.56e12| 61.9 e-3| |2.9wf | 520 e9 | 34.8 | 18.1 e12| 201 e-3| |=========|==========|======|==========|==========| |3wf hump | 1.2e12| 38.9 | 62.25e12| 693 e-3| |3.0wf | 19e9 | 38.9 | 739 e9 | 8.22e-3| |3.1wf | 21e9 | 43.4 | 911 e9 | 10.1 e-3| |3.2wf | 26e9 | 48.3 | 1.29e12| 14 e-3| |3.3wf | 32e9 | 53.5 | 1.71e12| 19 e-3| |3.4wf | 42e9 | 59.1 | 2.49e12| 27.7 e-3| |3.5wf | 63e9 | 65.1 | 4.1 e12| 45.6 e-3| |3.6wf | 110e9 | 71.5 | 7.87e12| 87.6 e-3| |3.7wf | 270e9 | 78.3 | 21.1 e12| 235 e-3| |3.8wf | 850e9 | 85.6 | 72.8 e12| 810 e-3| |3.9wf | 2.3e12| 93.4 | 215 e12| 2.39e0 | |=========|==========|======|==========|==========| | | watt | speed| Power | M/AM | | | \coch | *c | watts | g/s | |=========|==========|======|==========|==========| |4wf hump | 4.8 e12| 102 | 484 e12| 5.38e0 | |4.0wf | 160 e9 | 102 | 16.2 e12| 180 e-3| |4.1wf | 170 e9 | 110 | 18.7 e12| 208 e-3| |4.2wf | 220 e9 | 120 | 26.4 e12| 294 e-3| |4.3wf | 260 e9 | 130 | 33.8 e12| 376 e-3| |4.4wf | 320 e9 | 140 | 44.8 e12| 498 e-3| |4.5wf | 430 e9 | 150 | 64.5 e12| 718 e-3| |4.6wf | 670 e9 | 162 | 108 e12| 1.2 e0 | |4.7wf | 1.75e12| 174 | 244 e12| 2.71e0 | |4.8wf | 3.4 e12| 187 | 636 e12| 7.08e0 | |4.9wf | 9.2 e12| 200 | 1.84e15| 20.5 e0 | |=========|==========|======|==========|==========| |5wf hump | 18 e12| 214 | 3.85 e15| 42.8 e0 | |5.0wf | 740 e9 | 214 | 158 e12| 1.76e0 | |5.1wf | 820 e9 | 228 | 187 e12| 2.08e0 | |5.2wf | 1.0 e12| 244 | 244 e12| 2.71e0 | |5.3wf | 1.2 e12| 260 | 312 e12| 3.47e0 | |5.4wf | 1.5 e12| 276 | 414 e12| 4.6 e0 | |5.5wf | 1.9 e12| 294 | 559 e12| 6.22e0 | |5.6wf | 3.0 e12| 312 | 936 e12| 10.4 e0 | |5.7wf | 5.2 e12| 331 | 1.72 e15| 19.1 e0 | |5.8wf | 12 e12| 350 | 4.2 e15| 46.7 e0 | |5.9wf | 27 e12| 371 | 10 e15| 111 e0 | |=========|==========|======|==========|==========| |6wf hump | 54 e12| 392 | 21.2 e15| 236 e0 | |6.0wf | 3.4 e12| 392 | 1.33 e15| 14.8 e0 | |6.1wf | 3.7 e12| 415 | 1.53 e15| 17 e0 | |6.2wf | 4.5 e12| 438 | 1.97 e15| 21.9 e0 | |6.3wf | 5.5 e12| 462 | 2.54 e15| 28.3 e0 | |6.4wf | 6.4 e12| 488 | 3.12 e15| 34.7 e0 | |6.5wf | 8.2 e12| 512 | 4.2 e15| 46.7 e0 | |6.6wf | 12 e12| 539 | 6.47 e15| 72 e0 | |6.7wf | 20 e12| 567 | 11.3 e15| 126 e0 | |6.8wf | 41 e12| 596 | 24.4 e15| 271 e0 | |6.9wf | 100 e12| 625 | 62.5 e15| 695 e0 | |=========|==========|======|==========|==========| | | watt | speed| Power | M/AM | | | \coch | *c | watts | g/s | |=========|==========|======|==========|==========| |7wf hump | 170 e12| 656 | 111 e15| 1.23e3 | |7.0wf | 18 e12| 656 | 11.8 e15| 131 e0 | |7.1wf | 19 e12| 688 | 13.1 e15| 146 e0 | |7.2wf | 21 e12| 720 | 15.1 e15| 168 e0 | |7.3wf | 25 e12| 755 | 18.9 e15| 210 e0 | |7.4wf | 30 e12| 790 | 23.7 e15| 264 e0 | |7.5wf | 37 e12| 826 | 30.6 e15| 340 e0 | |7.6wf | 52 e12| 863 | 44.9 e15| 500 e0 | |7.7wf | 78 e12| 901 | 70.3 e15| 782 e0 | |7.8wf | 140 e12| 940 | 132 e15| 1.47e3 | |7.9wf | 270 e12| 980 | 265 e15| 2.95e3 | |=========|==========|======|==========|==========| |8wf hump | 520 e12| 1024 | 532 e15| 5.92e3 | |8.0wf | 110 e12| 1024 | 113 e15| 1.26e3 | |8.1wf | 120 e12| 1067 | 128 e15| 1.42e3 | |8.2wf | 130 e12| 1112 | 145 e15| 1.61e3 | |8.3wf | 150 e12| 1158 | 174 e15| 1.94e3 | |8.4wf | 170 e12| 1205 | 205 e15| 2.28e3 | |8.5wf | 210 e12| 1253 | 263 e15| 2.93e3 | |8.6wf | 270 e12| 1303 | 352 e15| 3.92e3 | |8.7wf | 360 e12| 1354 | 487 e15| 5.42e3 | |8.8wf | 520 e12| 1407 | 732 e15| 8.14e3 | |8.9wf | 830 e12| 1461 | 1.21e18| 13.5 e3 | |=========|==========|======|==========|==========| |9wf hump | 2.0 e15| 1516 | 3.03 e18| 33.7 e3 | |9.0wf | 800 e12| 1516 | 1.21 e18| 13.5 e3 | |9.1wf | 820 e12| 1579 | 1.3 e18| 14.5 e3 | |9.2wf | 870 e12| 1649 | 1.43 e18| 15.9 e3 | |9.3wf | 1 e15| 1701 | 1.7 e18| 18.9 e3 | |9.4wf | 1.3 e15| 1759 | 2.29 e18| 25.4 e3 | |9.5wf | 1.7 e15| 1882 | 3.2 e18| 35.6 e3 | |9.6wf | 2.4 e15| 1909 | 4.58 e18| 51 e3 | |9.7wf | 3.5 e15| 2115 | 7.4 e18| 82.3 e3 | |9.8wf | 6 e15| 2365 | 14.2 e18| 158 e3 | |9.9wf | 11 e15| 3053 | 33.6 e18| 374 e3 | |=========|==========|======|==========|==========| | | watt | speed| Power | M/AM | | | \coch | *c | watts | g/s | =================================================== KEY: **"hump" --The power peak that separates warp factors. **"coch" --Short for "cochrane", the standard measurement for subspace stress. The scale is calibrated such that the number of cochranes felt is equal to the speed traveled in multiples of the speed of light. **"M/AM" --The amount of mass to be converted to energy per second in order to supply the stated power requirements. 100% efficiency is assumed. ***"e" --Times ten to the power of. EG, 14e9 = 14 * 10^9 = 14,000,000,000 = 14 billion.
Here are pix of the 4 sizes I'm calculating for. Give me your gut reaction: Which size do you like better? Scenario 1 - Small: The top bulge is one deck tall. This is the size indicated by the blueprints linked to earlier. Scenario 2 - Medium: The lip of the main hull is the same height as the lip of the Constitution's saucer --about two decks. Scenario 3 - Large: The breadth of her main hull is about same as the diameter of a Constitution's saucer. This seems to be the size most often quoted. Scenario 4 - Extra Large: The length of the nacelles are the same as the length of the nacelles of the Constitution.
The second looks like a good size for a small warship that would have enough fuel to do its job and go back home.
I like option 2 (medium). Although the idea of the plasma weapon being some kind of spinal mount weapon seems to suggest a larger size, IMO.
Forgetting the numbers and going with my impressions, the smallest just doesn't look formidable. It looks cute. A small personnel shuttle limited to one solar system. A transport. A gad fly. A sitting duck. I can't take it seriously. The third one, "large", looks ungainly instead of threatening. Which doesn't make much sense, really, as they're all the same shape. So what makes this one more ungainly than any other? The second one, "medium", looks sleek and capable. If I were to choose one for a stealth ship by its looks alone, this is the one I'd choose. But the forth one... XL... It looks Romulan to me. I know that doesn't make sense but there it is.
SFB uses all 4 sizes #1 Frigate/Corvette #2 Destroyer #3 Cruiser #4 Dreadnought/Battleship Roughly Nice comparisons by the way
In general, I am not a fan of having several classes of vesssel that are just scaled versions of each other. The Klingon bird of prey, for example, ticks me off. But in this case I think it might be practical. I mean, the TOS BOP has exceptionally simple topography: an extruded saucer with wings. And from the point of view of secrecy, if all your ships look alike then an enemy agent can't be sure she saw a Corvette or a Dreadnaught without scanners that would give her presence away. I'm not sure how much I buy the idea, but I'm not opposed to it... Which is odd.
I don't mind scaled versions as long as there's a logical reason for it - the FASA take on the BOP is a good example IMO (all of the variants had different capabilities, and only looked superficially the same). Sometimes it's easier to build a larger or smaller version of an already existing design than to build a completely original one.
FWIW, a British N class destroyer would have been about 110 m long and 11 m wide, while a German Type VII sub would have been 67 m long and 6 m wide... The respective displacements would have been 2,300 tons and 870 tons (submerged). If we ignore nacelles and pylons (or scale them in terms of the respective propulsive performances of the destroyer and the sub, rather than size), option 2 is probably the closest to the WWII comparison: the primary hulls are in similar length and height relationship to each other then. But a submarine's hull is usable to a much smaller degree than a destroyer's: the pressure hull is smaller than the overall hull, and there's no useful superstructure. In that sense, option 1 would be closer - and the difference in nacelle size would truly begin to approximate the propulsive disparity between a destroyer and a sub! The displacement ratio would probably favor something between options 1 and 2... Timo Saloniemi