RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,915
Posts: 5,331,346
Members: 24,560
Currently online: 542
Newest member: jakesmit44543

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 February 7 2009, 01:00 AM   #31
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Constellation class

Ahhhhhhh! Facts!
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7 2009, 01:43 AM   #32
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Constellation class

I know... I was scared at first.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7 2009, 03:07 AM   #33
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

Thank, Rick. I just labeled it narrow-beam sensor here for brevity, even though it's called SNARE (Super Narrow Angle Reconnaisance Emitter) sensor, probably referenced from your article, in one schematic I've included in my package.

Large MSD with SNARE ref:
http://lcars24.com/NCC-3890.jpg

I also cut the mass a little, upon Vance's advice, and lengthened the warp core a little.



Last edited by LCARS 24; February 7 2009 at 03:23 AM.
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7 2009, 03:14 AM   #34
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Constellation class

Looks spiffy to me. Great job!
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7 2009, 07:07 AM   #35
JNG
Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
 
Re: Constellation class

LCARS 24 wrote: View Post

I also cut the mass a little, upon Vance's advice, and lengthened the warp core a little.
Volumetrically, it's three times what a TOS-configuration Constitution is (Jaynz.info giving the 190,000 ton figure for that ship), and with twice as many sets of warp coils in there, I'd expect it'd be even more massive than that comparison would normally warrant. I was curious as to the rationale for making it one third as dense instead.
JNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7 2009, 08:50 AM   #36
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

JNG wrote: View Post
LCARS 24 wrote: View Post

I also cut the mass a little, upon Vance's advice, and lengthened the warp core a little.
Volumetrically, it's three times what a TOS-configuration Constitution is (Jaynz.info giving the 190,000 ton figure for that ship), and with twice as many sets of warp coils in there, I'd expect it'd be even more massive than that comparison would normally warrant. I was curious as to the rationale for making it one third as dense instead.
That's logical. Are the nacelles longer on the TOS Ent, though?
Can you give me a good mass figure for the Constellation class?

Your insights and suggestions have been helpful to me in the past.

The figures as of now:

TOS Ent: 190,000
1701-A: 210,000
Miranda class: 150,000

The figure I had orginally estimated for the Constellation class was 304,700 metric tons. Maybe that was pretty close.

Last edited by LCARS 24; February 7 2009 at 09:41 AM.
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7 2009, 05:27 PM   #37
JNG
Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
 
Re: Constellation class

^

If you were to assign the Constellation a density similar to the one you have given the Enterprise 1701-A on your schematic, which would seem appropriate for the era and technology, it would have a mass similar to that of Voyager. This seems okay to me: the volume figures for Voyager and Constellation match one another to within the margin of error, and while we must expect that the warp coils are much more dense on the far more advanced Intrepid-class ship, the double pairs of nacelles on the Constellation probably make up for it.

My own files I write up for ships have a Constellation-class starship massed at 650,000 metric tons. I think I shaved that number down from Voyager's mass because I really liked the idea of that chunky Constellation primary hull and its big doors having lots of space inside for shuttle operations and cargo and all sorts of goodies (even more than is usual for a big Starfleet cruiser).

Rick Sternbach's article on these cruisers for Star Trek: The Magazine has the U.S.S. Constellation launched in 2284, and they are really quite big compared to the other canon ships we know from that era, aren't they? I am a fan, though.
JNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7 2009, 09:43 PM   #38
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

I just noticed that I had misread your post on page 1, JNG. You wrote "light," which I took as "right" at a glace. I'm always in too much of a hurry, I guess. Sorry. I checked that volumetrics site. It shows 700,000, and I see wildly conflicting figures around the Web for a lot of these ships. I just noticed one that put the Miranda class at 150,000 while another had it at over 2,000,000. Ugh. And a lot of people on this board badmouth volumetrics. Double-ugh.
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7 2009, 11:55 PM   #39
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Constellation class

Praetor wrote: View Post
Not bad, a few things though.

1) I'm pretty sure the torpedo launchers should be at the extremes of the nacelle struts (where you have the orange strip on the upper one). The ones on the model don't precisely match those found on the refit Enterprise, but there do seem to be tube openings there.

2) The impulse engines shouldn't cross through the centerline, and should run vertically in the two 'blocks' to either side of the rear section. Also, according to an article written for the Star Trek: Magazine a few years back, the antimatter pods should be stored basically where you show the impulse engine now, because they can be ejected out the back. (That article also had a cross section from forward. It can be found on Ex Astris here, down the page a bit.)

3) I blinked at the launch date of 2291. It seems a little early for a ship with a registry of NCC-9754. Maybe more like 2305?

Other than that, very nice.

I agree. The torp launchers should be in a similar location to the refit enterprise if they're using the same struts. No on screen evidence but it makes the most sense. Also, on screen wise, there aren't torpedo launchers in the saucer. I also don't like where the warp reactors are. Two? I don't know about that one. I would've liked to see it horizontally in the flat part that extends aft of the saucer. If the antimatter pods are to be where this says the impulse engines are, then it would make sense to have the ejection ports in close proximity.
kent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 02:35 AM   #40
JNG
Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
 
Re: Constellation class

LCARS 24 wrote: View Post
I just noticed that I had misread your post on page 1, JNG. You wrote "light," which I took as "right" at a glace. I'm always in too much of a hurry, I guess. Sorry. I checked that volumetrics site. It shows 700,000, and I see wildly conflicting figures around the Web for a lot of these ships. I just noticed one that put the Miranda class at 150,000 while another had it at over 2,000,000. Ugh. And a lot of people on this board badmouth volumetrics. Double-ugh.
You can do your own calculations of the ship's volume if you do not trust any of the ones kicking around the web, but Akimoto did show the work associated with his figures on Trek BBS a few years back; while some ships are hard to get figures for, the Constellation isn't one of them, being made up of some (slightly modified) parts with undisputed sizes against which we can measure the rest. Hey, she was put together using multiple model kits of ships using some of those parts. Thus, if anyone's math on the volume of this ship is "wildly conflicting" with the idea that it is very similar to that of Voyager, I have to figure they goofed with their calculator somewhere.

Measuring the volume of a ship, as a general thing, doesn't make much sense to me as something to badmouth; comparing the sizes of ships is a common activity around here. I don't know what method for doing so is being advanced as more accurate. Anyway, one ship at a time:

In this case, you have already done a schematic for 1701-A and set it at 260,000 (I think that's high, myself, but you've set it), and I don't see any reason to suggest that the Constellation, being around two and three quarters times the volume, would be even less massive than that. Why would it be only slightly more than a third as dense? With more warp coils in the mix, I would expect it would be even more dense, not so much less dense. I can understand some desire to keep it a little lighter than Voyager, but 650,000 was as low as I felt comfortable going. 700,000 is justified as well.
JNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 04:43 AM   #41
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

Thanks, JNG.

So this should be okay, I hope:

Constitution: 190,000
1701-A: 210,000
Miranda: 150,000
Constellation: 700,000

Another one I need some guidance on is the Luna class, with overall length of 454.3 meters. I just pulled a figure out of the air that seems way too high, and I need something reasonable to put on the schematic.

Luna class schematic:
http://lcars24.com/schem27.html
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 07:21 AM   #42
JNG
Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
 
Re: Constellation class

^

The Miranda volume (at a length of 765 feet, as on this chart here, or thereabouts) is so similar to that of the TOS Constitution that the difference is within the margin of error. As such, it would seem a little odd for the former to be so much (if any) less massive.

Ballparking the Luna with a very quick approximation: I am not super familiar with this design but have drawings, and I would say it is likely in the range of 1,100,000 to 1,300,000 tons, assuming a density not dissimilar to that of Voyager. Probably lower end. They are pretty big ships, but much narrower than, say, an Akira-class ship.
JNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 08:07 AM   #43
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

Thanks again, JNG. That's what I was thinking for the Luna, too. I'll make it in that range.

Vance said 150,000 for the Miranda but didn't answer about the Constellation. But 190,000 and 700,000 are fine with me.

For the NASA MSDs, I've got good "canon" figures.
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 09:12 AM   #44
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Constellation class

You know, guys, we should do a starship mass thread and pin all of the classes down...

Just as soon as we argue about dimensions, lengths, etc of the ships first.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 09:18 AM   #45
Lashmore
Lieutenant Commander
 
Lashmore's Avatar
 
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Lashmore
Re: Constellation class

Not saying its in the wrong place...but the anti-matter storage just seems to be in a place where its to vulnerable to attack...as anti-matter can be volatile and is a primary resource for so many things. Having them so close to an bulkhead that leads straight to space just seems....

Klingon Captain: Bring us to their aft and fire one small burst!
__________________
"2nd bar to the right, and drink on 'til morning." - Me
Lashmore is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
constellation class, technobabble

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 01:48 PM.

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