RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,092
Posts: 5,399,351
Members: 24,735
Currently online: 453
Newest member: jonjps246

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

City on the Edge of Forever #3 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

TV Alert: Shatner TNG Documentary
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22


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 October 4 2013, 06:29 PM   #1
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

The Excelsior scaling thread had me going back to look at some of my volumetrics notes from ages ago. (And let me tell you, digging around for half-written short form memos on harddrives from a decade ago isn't fun)

Specifically I wanted to look at the comparative internal volumes of the Sovereign, Galaxy, Akira and Nebula classes. (Along with older ships like Excelsiors and Ambassadors).

The Galaxy and Nebula have a substantial advantage when it comes to overall internal volume clocking in at 5.8 and 4.5 million m respectively. The next largest Starfleet design is Ambassador at 2.9 million m. The Sovereign when scaled at the John Eaves length of 2248' comes into a mere 2.4 million m.

First, we need to subtract the usable volume by getting rid of the warp nacelles.

Interestingly despite appearances, the Galaxy-class nacelles are fairly more voluminous due to their substantially greater beam. (Their heights are equivalent, while the Sovereign nacelles are longer by about a 20%. Sizes are about 250x50x30 for the GCS, and 320x30x30 for the SCS) Modelled volume is about 280,000 m while rougher calculations with cylinders of comparable dimensions yield a range of between 250,000 m - 290,000 m. Two nacelles gives us about 500,000 - 580,000 m. SCS nacelle volume estimates range from about 190,000 - 220,000 m giving us a total volume of 380,000 - 440,000 m.

So habitable volume on each ship becomes: 5.3 million m on the Galaxy, 4 million m on the Nebula and ~2 million m on the Sovereign.

Conservatively let's assume the TNG:TM is correct and about 35% of the Galaxy-class is empty space in her initial configuration circa 2365. And being even more conservative, let's subtract that as a total volume of the ship, not simply of habitable volume. That works out to 2 million m of empty space leaving us with 3.3 million m of volume used for things like systems, components, etc.

We can subtract some volume based on what we know of the crew complement of the Enterprise-D. As of Rascals she had a complement of 1,012. Allocating single occupancy quarters of 110 square meters per person, and allowing for triple redundancy (*guest quarters, evacuation limit, troops, etc.) we get a volume of about 1,018,000 m used for crew quarters. (Assumption is 110 m quarters * 3.3m average deck height giving us a roughly 363 m crew quarter module). So we're now left with 2.2 million m of usable volume.

For the sake of maximizing Sovereign-class internal systems, let's say she has a crew of 400 with crew quarters that are about half the area of a Galaxy-class ship and only double redundancy. (The quarters in the TNG movies are IIRC, redresses of the Voyager sets, which were in fact smaller for most quarters except the Captain's.) So 55 m and a deck height of 3.5 m (87m height divided by 24 decks, ignoring for the moment the deck 26 by Daniels in FC and 29 in NEM) giving us 192.5 m multiplied by 800 for 154,000 m total for crew quarters. This leaves the ship with 1.85 million m.

Next we go with fuel. Again, let's work with the TNG:TM's numbers for the GCS. 66,000 m is dedicated for the deuterium and anti-deuterium tanks, which is supposedly good for a 3 year cruise at warp 6. Basically the volume is a rounding error compared to total volume. I see nothing wrong with giving the same volume to the Sovereign.

Therefore if we assume the Galaxy's remaining internal volume is perhaps dedicated 75:25 to scientific vs. tactical systems (overly conservative, again), we get a payload capacity for equipment of 575,000 m.

If we decide that the Sovereign is fully loaded AND has internal volume almost totally dedicated to warfare instead of science (again, a dubious proposition) with the inverse proportion of systems dedication as the Galaxy we do get a more powerful tactical suite of 1.4 million m.

We know at least the intention was for the Enterprise-E to be a more powerful ship than her predecessor, given the STFC script describes her as "Starfleet's newest and most powerful vessel".(Emphasis added)

The internal features suggest Sovereign is a more powerful ship. For example scaling the warp core using Data as a benchmark (he crawls on top of the Enterprise-D core at one point and then he stands basically right next to the coolant pod in First Contact in this scene.) The coolant pods seem to be about the same diameter (or perhaps a smidge larger) than the Enterprise-D warp core. The Enterprise-E's warp core "nodes" are each about 2/3rds the diameter of the coolant pods. Somewhat conservatively we'll assume the coolant pods and the E-D core are 1.5m in diamater. We get a cross-section area of 1.8 m for the E-D core, and 1 m per "node" in the E-E. (A lower end estimate for this by the way is a 75cm diameter node instead and a cross-section area of 0.785 m) If the E-E warp core has only 6 nodes (without the central one shown in cutaways) that gives us a total area of 4.71~ 6 m. If the heights are equal to deck height then the respective cylinders have a volume of 75.6 m (1.8 m x 12 decks of 3.5 m each) and 230.8 ~ 294.2 m (14 decks of 3.5 m each x 4.71 ~ 6). Reaction chamber sizes are a bit harder to measure, but the Galaxy chamber appears to be about 1.5m tall while the Sovereign one is a bit taller at around 2m. The chamber sizes are therefore about: 2.7 m vs 9.41 ~ 12 m. Meaning the Sovereign's warp core is anywhere between 3x to 3.85x the total size of a Galaxy's. Reaction chamber size is closer to 4-5x. In which case this is all good, right? Sovereign more powerful than Galaxy case closed...

The problem of course becomes when we start chipping away at the assumptions made in the volume calcs above.

First, is it reasonable that the Sovereign would have such a small crew? We know the Intrepid-class has a crew complement of approximately 150, with a total internal volume of 625,000 m. Galaxy with a volume 9.3x that of Intrepid has approximately 6.7x the complement. So we know the scaling of crew size isn't necessarily linear with volume. OTOH Intrepid-class ships are state of the art, brand new with computer systems that are bleeding edge circa 2371. Since the Enterprise-E is roughly the same vintage, it's probably safest to assume a similar crew density, particularly since unlike the Enterprise-D circa 2367, she (presumably) doesn't have an enormous amount of empty volume. In fact, accounting for that empty space actually makes the Enterprise-D crew density HIGHER than Voyager at 0.26 people/1,000 m vs 0.24 people/1,000 m. At Voyager level crew densities, the Enterprise-E would have a complement of 574, while at the same density as her predecessor, we get a complement of 624. Since the senior staff is essentially unchanged from her predecessor, we might surmise the E-E has a similar crew complement (sans civilians).

Double redundancy in capacity in this case gives us a total of 1,300 or so quarters and a total use of 250,000 m or so. Of course we're told in Treklit and tech publications that Enterprise's complement is closer to 800 and she has an evacuation capacity for something like 9,800, so perhaps she, too has triple redundancy in accommodations, which would bring us to about 500,000 m of total internal volume dedicated to crew quarters.

Finally on the accommodations front, are the quarters really THAT much smaller than on the Galaxy? We know Riker's quarters at least has a full sized bath tub, a separate bedroom/office area in addition to the living room, so isn't all that much smaller than those on the E-D. Picard's quarters were a redress of Janeway's, which were in turn I think a redress of Picard's original quarters. Even using the Fact Files cutaway, we get something in the order of 60 m for the living area, plus an unspecified size for the other rooms (bedroom + bathroom). In which case quarters of 80 m to the original GCS spec of 110 m are perhaps more reasonable. This of course substantially increases the amount of space taken up by crew quarters. (672,000 - 924,000 m vs our original estimate of 154,000 m) This would significantly reduce the available space for other uses. The new range of available systems volume goes down to 1,076,000 - 1,328,000 m. Recalculating our tactical systems at 75% of those volumes gives us: 807,000 - 996,000 m.

Second, should we assume Sovereign is completely biased toward tactical goals? We know that Picard seems annoyed at being sent out to put out diplomatic brush fires, and that she's finally assigned to do some exploring at the end of NEM. Presumably the ship is capable of serving some scientific functions and exploratory functions. Using our revised available volume figures, this gives us payload of 403,500 m to 498,000 m which, uh oh, puts us under the Galaxy. Even the old payload volume of 75% of hull volume sans living quarters looks pretty low, too as we're talking 605,250 - 747,000 m.

Further, is pegging the Galaxy class tactical systems at a mere 15.5% of her total internal volume reasonable? What if we set the volume percentage at 25% of total internal volume instead? We get a rather much larger volume of 1.45 million m, or something equal to our original (vastly inflated) Sovereign estimates or nearly twice that of our revised (and still inflated) estimates. (Coincidentally or not, 1.45 million m is roughly the same as the internal volume sans nacelles of the Galaxy-class battle section.)

This is a bit of a problem. We see suggestions in the DS9TM that Starfleet was more than capable of building "mostly empty" Galaxy-class hulls with just their tactical suites. Assuming that most or all Starfleet technology is modular, it makes no sense to build a Sovereign when you could build an equally or even superior Galaxy-class hull for the same effort. This is even more the case when you consider that in terms of long-term expandability and usability the latter hull is vastly, vastly superior.

Further the raise d'etre of the Sovereign becomes murkier still when we see that there's already a "reduced size" modern ship of similar, but not quite capability as the Galaxy in the Nebula. At 3.5 million m internal volume, a stripped down Nebula could be equipped with more spartan living quarters and given a similar or superior tactical payload.

...so what's the point of a 2.4 million m Sovereign? Is her warp geometry that much more superior? It's a possibility given that ships similar to it in length/width ratio seem to have substantially improved warp speed performance over much beamier ships. Voyager has a "maximum cruising speed" of warp 9.975 according to Caretaker, and Prometheus was doing warp 9.9 without much trouble. On the other hand, Bonchune (or whatever that Nebula in Message in a Bottle is named) was catching up to the fleeing Prometheus so perhaps the performance advantage isn't quite as pronounced as we're given to think.

But what if we scale the Sovereign to a slightly greater size? We can either work from a 2370s average deck height of 4m x 24 decks (ignoring the deck 26 and 29 references) or stick with a 3.5m deck height but increase deck count to 29. In either case we end up with an increase of volume of about 1.331 - 1.56x giving us a more comfortable range of 3.12 - 3.75 million m. Nacelle volume now ranges from 247,000 - 343,000 m which might reasonably give us a superior performing set of nacelles over the Galaxy. For the sake of compromise, let's take the mid-point between the really big figures and posit a 3.435 million m Sovereign for the remainder of this post. (This would give us a ship length of 775m or so...)

Such ship would have a nacelle volume of 295,000 m and a total usable volume of 2,845,000 m. Assuming more modest accomodations than the Galaxy of 80 m with a deck height of 4.1m (roughly equal to Intrepid and Defiant dimensions and rather incidentally equal to the deck scaling in the Sovereign MSDs) and 2,000 quarters gives us 656,000 m of accomodations leaving us with 2,189,000 m of payload volume. With a 75:25 split of tactical/scientific volume, we then get a mission payload of 1,641,750 m for tactical systems and 547,250 m for everything else, which actually compare rather favorably to our 25% total volume tactical Galaxy's 1,450,000 m tactical and 750,000 m scientific facilities. Contrasting to a Nebula with a similar loadout ratio as a Galaxy yields 1,125,000/585,000 m which compares very favorably to our bigger Sovereign. (Of course our "maximum possible" Sovereign based on dialogue and internal arrangements would have 29 decks with Intrepid style 4m decks given cooridor size/Jefferies Tubes arrangements and would have a volume damn near approaching a Galaxy, but let's not go there)

If you then combine much more favorable warp geometry (official sources range from warp 9.8 to 9.985 for Sovereign-class top speed) and perhaps better distribution of tactical systems, this then becomes a ship that actually is more powerful and perhaps more useful to build than upgunned or upgraded Galaxy or Nebula-class ships.

It's all a bit speculative, of course, but perhaps we misread the size comparison in First Contact. Maybe the Defiant wasn't scaled down, and it's simply that Enterprise is bigger than the various setting drawings. Perhaps Jean-Luc was just talking about the length of the ship itself (sans nacelles?) when describing her to Lily. Both are a bit of a stretch, of course, but the ship being only 2.4 million m in volume is also a stretch.

Last edited by Nob Akimoto; October 4 2013 at 07:46 PM.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5 2013, 03:19 AM   #2
Saturn0660
Rear Admiral
 
Saturn0660's Avatar
 
Location: NE Ohio
View Saturn0660's Twitter Profile
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

my head hurts.
__________________
How many lights do YOU see?
Saturn0660 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5 2013, 04:01 AM   #3
Melakon
Vice Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave, Ekos
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
. . .It's all a bit speculative, of course. . .
After all those extensive calculations, this seems somewhat of an understatement.
__________________
Moe: I'll take the blonde!
Larry: I'll take the brunette!
Curly: I'll take the Black and Tan!
--Wee Wee Monsieur (1938)
Melakon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 6 2013, 01:11 PM   #4
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

If you look at the basic design of the Enteprise-E and see for example that the impulse engines are in an extremely ineffective position and angle, you realize that John Eaves just didn't give a shit about any technological considerations. So you were basically wasting a lot of time here.

You can do that with the TOS, TMP and TNG Enterprise, because it seems the people there spend a bit more thoughts about the logic of their design. But the Enterprise-E is just eye candy, nothing more.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 6 2013, 04:22 PM   #5
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
If you look at the basic design of the Enteprise-E and see for example that the impulse engines are in an extremely ineffective position and angle, you realize that John Eaves just didn't give a shit about any technological considerations. So you were basically wasting a lot of time here.

You can do that with the TOS, TMP and TNG Enterprise, because it seems the people there spend a bit more thoughts about the logic of their design. But the Enterprise-E is just eye candy, nothing more.
Well, in which case I suppose he won't mind if the ship's scaled a bit larger!
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 02:44 AM   #6
Captain_Amasov
Captain
 
Captain_Amasov's Avatar
 
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

So are the impulse engines using actual thrust to move the ship, or are they just sub-light warp engines like Rick Sternbach suggested over on Doug Drexler's blog that one time:

A careful inspection of the Nebula-class model reveals that it has no visible impulse engines. In a recent entry on Doug Drexler's weblog, Rick Sternbach indicated that he envisioned the ship's impulse drives as being hidden behind baffles to scatter their signature for stealth reasons. He added that "modern" Starfleet vessel impulse engines operated on little conventional rocket thrust anyways, being more of a sub-warp subspace drive.
- http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Nebu...ulsion_systems
Captain_Amasov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 05:36 AM   #7
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
If you look at the basic design of the Enteprise-E and see for example that the impulse engines are in an extremely ineffective position and angle, you realize that John Eaves just didn't give a shit about any technological considerations. So you were basically wasting a lot of time here.

You can do that with the TOS, TMP and TNG Enterprise, because it seems the people there spend a bit more thoughts about the logic of their design. But the Enterprise-E is just eye candy, nothing more.
Well, in which case I suppose he won't mind if the ship's scaled a bit larger!
I certainly won't. Apart from the fact that I absolutely loathe the Enterprise-E design, it doesn't make a lot of sense that the ship they build to replace a Galaxy class would be less than half as large and given a completely different mission.

Also... I don't suppose you could be a pal and include the Kelvin and Alt Enterprise in your volumetric analysis. The creeping nerd rage over the Reboot is strong enough that I think I may be the only person in the universe who actually bothers with it anymore.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 08:33 AM   #8
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

^^ I thought the problem with the volumetric analysis of the nuTrek Enterprise was mostly one of contradicting size suggestions as compiled in Bernd Schneider's examination of the issue at EAS.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 10:21 AM   #9
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

Captain_Amasov wrote: View Post
So are the impulse engines using actual thrust to move the ship, or are they just sub-light warp engines like Rick Sternbach suggested over on Doug Drexler's blog that one time:

A careful inspection of the Nebula-class model reveals that it has no visible impulse engines. In a recent entry on Doug Drexler's weblog, Rick Sternbach indicated that he envisioned the ship's impulse drives as being hidden behind baffles to scatter their signature for stealth reasons. He added that "modern" Starfleet vessel impulse engines operated on little conventional rocket thrust anyways, being more of a sub-warp subspace drive.
- http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Nebu...ulsion_systems
Well, as long as it's called "impulse", it's not warp.

They simply forgot to add red glowy thingies on the Nebula class model. I really doubt that Sternbach "envisioned" it beforehand.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 06:05 PM   #10
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Also... I don't suppose you could be a pal and include the Kelvin and Alt Enterprise in your volumetric analysis. The creeping nerd rage over the Reboot is strong enough that I think I may be the only person in the universe who actually bothers with it anymore.
ST09 Ship Volumes(very rough) All measurements in m:
295m (Saucer scaled to TMP Enterprise):
Enterprise
  • Total: 251,249.14
  • Saucer: 117,122.30
  • Secondary Hull: 33,787.68
  • Nacelle (Single): 50,169.58
Kelvin
  • Total: 176,489.43
  • Saucer: 100,339.17
  • Secondary Hull: 22,845.08
  • Nacelle: 53,305.18

366m (Ryan Church Design Length):
Enterprise
  • Total: 479,823.82
  • Saucer: 223,674.67
  • Secondary Hull: 64,526.12
  • Nacelle (Single): 95,811.51
Kelvin
  • Total: 337,051.22
  • Saucer: 191,623.03
  • Secondary Hull: 43,628.46
  • Nacelle: 101,799.73

725m (Certain Interior/Exterior VFX Shot Length):
Enterprise
  • Total: 3,729,516.76
  • Saucer: 1,738,551.51
  • Secondary Hull: 501,540.86
  • Nacelle (Single): 744,712.19
Kelvin
  • Total: 2,619,791.10
  • Saucer: 1,489,424.38
  • Secondary Hull: 339,110.02
  • Nacelle: 791,256.70

1025m (Supposed Length for Shuttlebay Size):
Enterprise
  • Total: 10,539,260.51
  • Saucer: 4,912,981.62
  • Secondary Hull: 1,417,306.90
  • Nacelle (Single): 2,104,486.00
Kelvin
  • Total: 7,403,281.10
  • Saucer: 4,208,972.00
  • Secondary Hull: 958,292.73
  • Nacelle: 2,236,016.37

For comparison's sake
Galaxy - 5,900,000 m
Enterprise (TOS) - 210,000 m
Enterprise (TMP) - 280,000 m

Basically the two larger end sizes are somewhat preposterous and even the Church 366m might be a bit problematic. Especially when we consider Kelvin is probably meant to have existed in the Prime Timeline as well.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 06:50 PM   #11
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
^^ I thought the problem with the volumetric analysis of the nuTrek Enterprise was mostly one of contradicting size suggestions as compiled in Bernd Schneider's examination of the issue at EAS.

Bob
I don't see how that would be a problem for anyone but Bernd Schneider, considering how asinine his "examination" actually is.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 07:58 PM   #12
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Basically the two larger end sizes are somewhat preposterous and even the Church 366m might be a bit problematic. Especially when we consider Kelvin is probably meant to have existed in the Prime Timeline as well.
Fits just fine to me, especially since the NuEnterprise's engine room is at least as big as the E-E's (even if its warp core is twenty times larger). I've been projecting the Enterprise at about 3,650,000m^3 which drops to about 2,260,000 just for habitable space (the nacelles are freaking huge). That would put her just slightly ahead of the Ambassador class in terms of useful volume, which -- being a much earlier design -- it almost certainly does not use as efficiently. In that sense the Ambassador makes a lot more sense as an eventual successor to the NuEnterprise than it does to the E-A.

It's also been brought to our collective attentions that the MSD for the Enterprise-E is painfully inaccurate and we should probably not take it at face value. In that case, we might as well stick with the dialog cues and assume a ship with at least 29 decks and then try to work out the length and volume accordingly. Like a lot of the Berman-era starships, the E-E has a pretty uniform distribution of window rows along MOST of the hull, so this could turn into yet another "Excelsior scaling thread" redux. Seeing how inconsistently the E-E has been scaled in all three of its movie appearances, I'm surprised this has never come up before...
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; October 8 2013 at 08:17 PM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 08:10 PM   #13
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

My 775m length was basically scaled to about the dialogue lengths as well as the fudged "almost 700 meters" as being the ship without nacelles (which would be close to 700m if she were 775m long WITH nacelles).

Granted we've never actually heard anyone describe a ship without their nacelles....
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 08:16 PM   #14
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

That's the same dialog that says the ship has twenty four decks. Contradicted later in that same movie where the Borg "control decks 26 up to eleven" and in Nemesis where the Remans beam aboard on Deck 29.

Better off ignoring this as a mistake by Picard, seeing how they're deep in Borg territory and he's trying to watch out for Borg while he's answering her questions.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2013, 08:25 PM   #15
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Sorry Johnny, your ship's too small...

A 29 deck Sovereign would depend on the deck height. 3.5m decks gives us a 794m ship, while with 4m decks that gives us a 905m monster.

Likewise 26 decks: 720m (@3.5m/deck), 818m (@4m/deck)
Nob Akimoto 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 02:20 PM.

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