RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,552
Posts: 5,513,599
Members: 25,144
Currently online: 603
Newest member: A.E.Andres

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 28 2010, 12:37 AM   #31
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

Ronald Held wrote: View Post
They should be using inertial mass measured in a flat space.
Why should the nacelles be heavy? they contain hollow coils which the electroplasma energizes to generate the warp field? How much of the ship is "empty"(air filled)?
That's assuming the TOS nacelles work anything like their TNG counterparts. Chances are good that they do not.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 12:58 AM   #32
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

Vance wrote: View Post
As far as I can tell, in 1966, "gross tons" did not mean "gross register tons".
It did.. and didn't, depending on the shipyard, cargo hauling, etc.. IE, whoever you were talking to.
Right - that's true and why I'm not dismissing that as a possibility (newtype_alpha had mentioned this in another post earlier which was intriguing.)

Vance wrote: View Post
Come 1969 they adopted a more formal definition, but since we're sticking to Jefferies work as a source, we got to figure out exactly what he meant.
This is where my skepticism comes in - we can link Jefferies to the length/width/height/design of the Enterprise for the scaling up but the "190,000 tons" figure seems to predate him. Jefferies could be one of the sources for "190,000 tons" but also Roddenberry as well.

Vance wrote: View Post
This only begs the question.. how much does she weigh loaded? I did see a rough US Navy formula for determining this from the dimensions of the ship, but that gets tricky for the shape of the Enterprise. Worse, we know that the Enterprise uses far less material than a Naval ship, while using far more energy. That balance is going to heavily screw with your numbers.
I don't know and I think it is anyone's guess, IMHO. If we had access to consultant memos, scripts and edits for that episode it might shed some clues to what the production folks back then thought it should be.

As far as naval ships, since the Nimitz class has been brought up before, here is a neat link regarding the building of one (the George HW Bush CVN-77) which might help anyone trying to use the Nimitz as a starting point:

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-cv...4629.htmlstory

There are some photos there that I think illustrate how big that is but also how thin the walls, hull and supports seem to be (look at the neat cross-section photos of each part).

The island:



Section 3 is interesting as well:

"Steel accounts for more than 47,000 tons on a fully loaded, 102,000-ton Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, said Todd Curts, a senior sourcing representative at the yard. Trucks drop off the steel, typically in pieces 10 feet wide and 30 feet long.
When it’s time to turn a sheet into a part of the carrier, a magnet crane picks up the piece and takes it into the steel cutting shop.
About 25,000 full-size steel plates go into building a carrier, said Jim Cash, head of the yard steel fabrication shop.
The shop takes plates, which Cash said range from 3/16 of an inch to 6 inches thick, and cuts them into smaller pieces of various shapes and sizes.
More than 700,000 individual parts make up the main steel structure of the carrier, Cash said. That includes hundreds of thousands of pieces cut from the plates. It also includes hundreds of thousands of shapes such as angles, T-bars and I-beams. “That’s a lot of part numbers,” Cash quipped."






And another interesting quote (for me anyway)
"
As one of five buyers in the shipyard’s steel purchasing division, Curts bought much of the steel for the George H.W. Bush carrier. He is a liaison between yard engineers who create the ship specifications and steel mills.
“They refer to it in 100-weights, tons, metric tons, short tons, pounds,” he said. “You really have to hang on when you’re talking to engineers and metallurgists because they will change units on you in a minute.”"


Anyway, its a fascinating read with great reference photos.



Last edited by blssdwlf; June 28 2010 at 01:50 AM. Reason: photos
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 06:13 AM   #33
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

I think the next thing we need to dispense with is "metric tons". That's an FJ addition to the situation.

As for why would Roddenberry bother to include the weight, crew complement, and other sundry details in a format pitch, it was to make it clear that this wasn't going to be Rocky Jones and his five friends tooling around the galaxy in a V-2 rocket. A big ship with a big crew means "this is a serious show!" As well as to convey the impression that this was a fairly thought-out concept, and not Crazy Gene jotting down some notes and saying, "Hey, I've got an idea for a show!"

Now, regarding this notion that there was some bizarre campaign of meaningless revisionism going on with the format pitch, do you really want me to take this to Bjo Trimble (who ran Lincoln Enterprises in the early days) or Dorothy Fontana (GR's secretary in '64 and the first one to see the format pitch) and ask them about this conspiracy theory?
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 01:32 PM   #34
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Now, regarding this notion that there was some bizarre campaign of meaningless revisionism going on with the format pitch, do you really want me to take this to Bjo Trimble (who ran Lincoln Enterprises in the early days) or Dorothy Fontana (GR's secretary in '64 and the first one to see the format pitch) and ask them about this conspiracy theory?
You?

Absolutely not. I've seen you ask questions of sources before in attempts to win arguments... you don't care about the truth, you want everyone to see things your way. All that would result in you asking them anything is contaminating/spoiling them as a any possibility of being a source for good data. I don't think you take data collection seriously.

First thing one needs to do is separate people with opinions (specially strong, bias opinions) from the people who might be able to shed light on any area in question. Your questions of people are always loaded and would be the equivalent of asking someone when did they stop beating their wife.

To be fair, I don't think I could ask the questions all that much better. And it has been a dilemma for me in my research.

For example, I have a number of questions about the construction of the original models... and I have Richard Datin's phone number, e-mail and home addresses. And yet I haven't contacted him. Why? Because I know that it would be better to have someone who is trained at giving historical interviews rework any questions I have into questions that will yield the best answers.

So again, should you ask this question? No.

You would most likely include something like this...
"... notion that there was some bizarre campaign of meaningless revisionism... conspiracy theory"
Which is a deliberate mischaracterization design to illicit a negative response. After all, it is only bizarre as a matter of (your) opinion, it doesn't qualify as a campaign by any reasonable definition of that word, it wasn't meaningless revisionism if it helped people identify with what followed (such as changing the name from Yorktown to Enterprise) and it may not have been done with any ill or nefarious intent as is implied by the use of the term conspiracy theory.

Would either Bjo Trimble or Dorothy Fontana recall if those figures were part of a document submitted 45 years ago? I know I have had a hard time recalling more prominent details of documents I produced from 20 years ago... and neither of these women are the originator of the document.

Would your loaded questions get you the answer you want? Most likely. But what would be the cost?



________________________

Gagarin wrote: View Post
Shaw wrote: View Post
It seems that you guys need to do more of this on your own, so I'll be sharing less of what I've found. After all, my research was intended for only one person... me.

My last hint, TMoST is a poor reference if you care to know what actually happened.
That's a rather poor attitude.
Not really... I started noticing more than a year ago that sharing my works in progress has more negatives than positives. There are people (like CRA) who act as if they are entitled to my work... and pressure me for it.

But I've noticed that I don't need to share these things to get the same enjoyment from them... in fact, they have been more enjoyable since I stopped sharing.

Heck, I tried to help blssdwlf by pointing out that some of Vance's points should be listened to... and that set him off into attack mode.

So, do I need that type of stress? Absolutely not. Can I afford the extra work I put into answering people's questions (at least as things are in my life currently)? No.

I don't have any good reason to share any more. And considering the fact that what I've shared so far is a drain on my bandwidth, I've been considering pulling down the images that get the most traffic. As it currently stands, there is no benefit for me in any of this. Though I'll most likely look at my hosting cost over the next few months before deciding.

Nothing personal... but I think most of you guys are tiresome. Or at least I'm just tired of this stuff.

Either way... that is the root of my poor attitude.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 04:08 PM   #35
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

First things first, wasn't it you that groused long and hard about certain persons who claim to have slam-bang evidence of something astounding and refuse to share what they have? Do you really want to become the enemy at this point in the game? As far as any sense of entitlement, consider that I've put my deck plan project on hold, waiting for you to get to the finish line, so yeah, I've got a vested interest in seeing how it all comes out. I suspect I'm not alone in that category. Besides, all I need at this point is the nacelle placement and I'm off and running.

Getting back to the main point of contention, I have yet to hear anything resembling evidence, or even a halfway sensible reason, for why that initial format pitch would've been altered in any way, especially when, at the same time, copies of the third season edition of the Writers Guide were sold with all of the typos intact. It's an artifact from the series earliest days, was marketed as such, and other than Spock's name, doesn't include a thing that made it through the pilot stage. So why would a piddling little detail like the deadweight tonnage of a not-yet-designed ship be altered and the rest retained?

If you have evidence of the document having been altered in this manner, by all means, let's see it. Don't turn into one of the data hoarders you despised so much not too long ago.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 04:14 PM   #36
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

Bantering back-and-forth about who did and knew what and when did they do or know it is beside the main issue of this subject. Does someone just what an answer dug up out of dusty history or should there a be an effort to try working out a credible figure for how much the ship weighs?
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 04:33 PM   #37
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

Yes.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 07:47 PM   #38
Gagarin
Commander
 
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

Shaw wrote: View Post

Gagarin wrote: View Post
Shaw wrote: View Post
It seems that you guys need to do more of this on your own, so I'll be sharing less of what I've found. After all, my research was intended for only one person... me.

My last hint, TMoST is a poor reference if you care to know what actually happened.
That's a rather poor attitude.
Not really... I started noticing more than a year ago that sharing my works in progress has more negatives than positives. There are people (like CRA) who act as if they are entitled to my work... and pressure me for it.

But I've noticed that I don't need to share these things to get the same enjoyment from them... in fact, they have been more enjoyable since I stopped sharing.

Heck, I tried to help blssdwlf by pointing out that some of Vance's points should be listened to... and that set him off into attack mode.

So, do I need that type of stress? Absolutely not. Can I afford the extra work I put into answering people's questions (at least as things are in my life currently)? No.

I don't have any good reason to share any more. And considering the fact that what I've shared so far is a drain on my bandwidth, I've been considering pulling down the images that get the most traffic. As it currently stands, there is no benefit for me in any of this. Though I'll most likely look at my hosting cost over the next few months before deciding.

Nothing personal... but I think most of you guys are tiresome. Or at least I'm just tired of this stuff.

Either way... that is the root of my poor attitude.
It just sounds like sour grapes, for whatever reason you have to be sour. What's tiresome is all the hyperbole around here. "Conspiracy" this, "tiresome" this, "entitled" that, "pressured" this, "attack mode", "the extra work", "that kind of stress" and it wasn't long ago I'm sure someone was on about "censorship".

Come on. It's a vBulletin Trek forum.

What you're experiencing isn't that unlike anyone who creates something. Of course it's easier not to share, especially if you have thin skin. It's a hobby. Enjoy it? Do it. Don't enjoy it? Then don't.

I'm sure all the agonizing and hand wringing about what's true or not and what's trusted or not would be aided by putting up what you've uncovered in a non-interactive way. People can take it or leave it. Or you can be cryptic and give things piece meal from what you've learned, whenever you feel like you can come down off the mountain. Make a simple webpage and people can take it for what it's worth.

Or not. I'm sure it's less "productive" for you to be talking about things you've learned and uncovered but not actually sharing them. That doesn't help. See this thread for example.

There's a choice - share, or keep it to yourself in your own little world of imagination, building models no one will see, drawing things no one will see. Most people, I suspect, enjoy creating more when there's sharing.

But whatever you do, drop the "it's a burden" act. I have really enjoyed your work. People who post "can't wait to see more!" aren't hounding you, they're trying to encourage and be supportive. It should PLEASE you that people are digging what you're doing. It should PLEASE you that people respond to it, even disagree perhaps, because you engaged them enough to respond. That's what good art does.

And to be honest, Shaw, I need to call out that "fact" about taking your work down, as having a grounding in a bandwidth issue. There's absolutely no way that this forum and its visitors would have any sort of impact on a modern hosting plan. There's no way you're doing multiple gigabytes of transfer a month or using hardly ANY CPU time transferring static files. If serving JPEGs to a few hundred people a month causes that much of a billable drain, then you seriously have a hosting plan from 2002 and need to reconsider that. But I suspect all you did was make a veiled "I'm going to take my toys and go home" argument while saying "my mom is calling me". It just sounds like sour grapes.

You can't hold it against people from being excited about what you do, you can't hold it against people from not knowing what you know when you share mystic cryptic parts because 'it's better when you don't share and do things just for myself'. Or that they have wrong opinions because you know more. If we're in ignorance it's because we're in ignorance. And there's no way to change that unless there's good resources out there - and then people can discount said resources, but that's up to them.

But honestly, I'm not that much into fandom. I could never dig up what you did. I'm in the wrong generation for that. I like looking at the pretty pictures and doodling my own, but hell, do I want to do the research, no. I'm not as talented as you. I'm definitely not as passionate about it as you are. It wouldn't be worth my time because I can't do with it what you can do with it. Share, or don't share.
__________________
"If you need a holodeck to make an interstellar starship on the bleeding edge of the unknown
interesting, something is seriously amiss."
- Straczynski & Zabel
Gagarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 08:03 PM   #39
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

Thing is, Garagin, Shaw has put up that material. There are a number of threads in this form and the Art forum about Shaw's work and research. He's cited it repeatedly, and it's repeatedly ignored in favor of someone else's 'flavor of Trek' - which, of course, must be religiously adhered to as 'official' even when in ain't.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 08:34 PM   #40
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

You can't be responsible for what other people think and do. If you worry about it then all you get out of it is an ulcer. Best just to do the stuff you like and post your own honest opinions, stick by them, and to hell with whatever anyone else thinks or says or does. If someone doesn't agree with you or like what you're doing then who cares? To hell with them. What possible bearing can a different opinion have on what you like doing?

I hold all manner of different views that don't gel with what the majority seems to think around here...and I couldn't care less.

Weighing and considering another viewpoint doesn't mean you have to automatically accept it. It's just another viewpoint that may or may not be of some worth to you.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 08:37 PM   #41
Gagarin
Commander
 
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

Vance wrote: View Post
Thing is, Garagin, Shaw has put up that material. There are a number of threads in this form and the Art forum about Shaw's work and research. He's cited it repeatedly, and it's repeatedly ignored in favor of someone else's 'flavor of Trek' - which, of course, must be religiously adhered to as 'official' even when in ain't.
I carefully look for and read every one of Shaw's posts, it wasn't that he hasn't posted, it's just in parts in the middle of debates. And people disagree. Or ignore. Or whatever. And then he gets in a huff. Might not be the best 'forum' to get a point across in a sea of shouting people.

What I was mostly referring to is his 'not sharing as much for now on' and any unshared recently done work, or any other things he might find because he 'wants people to do work themselves'. Which is hypothetical and in the future.
__________________
"If you need a holodeck to make an interstellar starship on the bleeding edge of the unknown
interesting, something is seriously amiss."
- Straczynski & Zabel
Gagarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 09:37 PM   #42
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but there is another issue that I think is being overlooked.

Scotty's "million tons of vessel" remark may have been a reference to the starship Enterprise's mass while underway, which means the million-ton figure not only includes the ship's hull, equipment, engines and crew supplies but also other bulky substances such as the crew's water supply (presumably a generous supply) and, much more importantly, the ship's fuel supply. Keep in mind the Enterprise was on a five-year mission. It is logical to assume that the Enterprise would carry sufficient fuel and potable water to carry on at least a major part of that mission, if not most of it.

Why? Because it is a starship, which by definition is expected to travel into deep space for significant periods of time without returning to a friendly port. That's what makes the Enterprise markedly different from any real-world sea-going vessel. Starfleet knows the possibilities that their starships could be lost on the frontier. It could be that some ships are destroyed and others are damaged "out there" and will need at least some level of self-sufficiency to help the crew survive. Think of it as a "Delta Vega" scenario.

Also keep in mind that fuel is needed not only for the ship's engines but also for probes, shuttlecraft, and photon torpedoes. Without fuel in storage, how would any of these items be useful?

In the TNG Tech Manual (and, if I'm not mistaken, the TNG Writer's Tech Manual) the 5-million-ton figure is floated for the Enterprise-D. Presumably, the lion's share of the Enterprise-D's mass is fuel. (At least, that's what I remember reading.) You can dismiss it as TNG technobabble if you like, but it is food for thought.
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 10:21 PM   #43
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

Gagarin wrote: View Post
-pointless negativity-

... Enjoy it? Do it. Don't enjoy it? Then don't.

-pointless negativity-

There's a choice - share, or keep it to yourself...

-pointless negativity-

Share, or don't share.
Boy, that was sure a different tune than you were singing back in this post... but you are right, it boils down to a simple choice.

I can deal with more posts like yours... or not.

I thank you for your frankness, you've made that choice much easier.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2010, 11:29 PM   #44
Gagarin
Commander
 
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

Shaw wrote: View Post
Gagarin wrote: View Post
-pointless negativity-

... Enjoy it? Do it. Don't enjoy it? Then don't.

-pointless negativity-

There's a choice - share, or keep it to yourself...

-pointless negativity-

Share, or don't share.
Boy, that was sure a different tune than you were singing back in this post... but you are right, it boils down to a simple choice.

I can deal with more posts like yours... or not.

I thank you for your frankness, you've made that choice much easier.
That was damn near 2 years ago, Shaw.
And you're still singing the same tune, like Dante in Clerks.

It's the same tune. Love your work, hate to see it stop, want to see more. But the unappreciated/misunderstood/stoic/suffering artist bit needed to stop.

And I called you out on the bogus bandwidth excuse. I was pointing out what it was - you deleting your stored archive would be nothing but sour grapes. I'm not wrong.

I would read whatever you post, look at anything you post, probably love anything you post. But I can do without the drama posts.
"The truth is out there...It seems that you guys need to do more of this on your own, so I'll be sharing less of what I've found. After all, my research was intended for only one person... me."
^that, above all else, is what I was responding to. Because it's a wall banger.

And...done.
__________________
"If you need a holodeck to make an interstellar starship on the bleeding edge of the unknown
interesting, something is seriously amiss."
- Straczynski & Zabel
Gagarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2010, 12:17 AM   #45
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: How much does the Enterprise weigh?

Gagarin wrote: View Post
And I called you out on the bogus bandwidth excuse. I was pointing out what it was - you deleting your stored archive would be nothing but sour grapes. I'm not wrong.
I host 3 clients sites, my Dad's site and two sites of my own, yet TrekBBS accounts for nearly half of my total bandwidth. I've posted very few images over the last 6 months, and yet that hasn't gone down.

So yeah... you are wrong, and it is something I've been considering for quite some time. And considering that much of that is (as you pointed out) from two or more years ago, it has most likely been up too long anyways. And I know that many people do house cleaning more often than I do.

But unless you are donating money (which I've always accepted on my site), you don't really have a say in this.

And...done.
Exactly.

If I was having second thoughts, I'm not any more. Thanks!
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.