RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,897
Posts: 5,387,030
Members: 24,717
Currently online: 560
Newest member: teriankhoka

TrekToday headlines

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Retro Review: Profit and Lace
By: Michelle on Aug 16

Eve Engaged
By: T'Bonz on Aug 15

Shatner’s Get A Life DVD Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14

TV Alert: Takei Oprah Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14


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 8 2009, 10:48 AM   #46
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Constellation class

No more than having it at the bottom, when you think about it a bit.
__________________
"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 8 2009, 12:02 PM   #47
JNG
Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
 
Re: Constellation class

SicOne wrote: View Post
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.
I joined this board in September 2001 and have enjoyed trying to contribute to hashing all that stuff out ever since. Others have been here notably longer. At the rate we're going, we should all get to that big "everything pinned down" thread by...oh, the 23rd century
JNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 01:19 PM   #48
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

I guess I should put together a chart, at least for the ships I have covered, and start a thread.
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 02:15 PM   #49
Bernard Guignard
Captain
 
Bernard Guignard's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario
Re: Constellation class

I think that would be a good idea give people like me who draw a place to get some quasi-realistic numbers for blueprints and such.
__________________
Live Long and Prosper Technically
Bernard Guignard
Project Manager TreknoGraphx
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trekno...yguid=89237652
Bernard Guignard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 02:16 PM   #50
MichaelS
Fleet Captain
 
MichaelS's Avatar
 
Location: Austria
Re: Constellation class

LCARS 24 wrote: View Post
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.
Actually, the SNARES acronym was something Rick came up with when I posted my in-progress Constellation schematics here some years back. (See this post in my currently dormant thread.)
__________________
Exploring the Universe
Out now: Star Trek: A Choice of Catastrophes
MichaelS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 05:12 PM   #51
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

Bernard Guignard wrote: View Post
I think that would be a good idea give people like me who draw a place to get some quasi-realistic numbers for blueprints and such.
I had my LCARS system spit out a chart. I'll start a thread with it right after this post. Maybe I'll get some valuable information from it and not too much fighting.

MichaelS wrote: View Post
LCARS 24 wrote: View Post
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.
Actually, the SNARES acronym was something Rick came up with when I posted my in-progress Constellation schematics here some years back. (See this post in my currently dormant thread.)
Cool. Now I know the source!
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 06:15 PM   #52
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Constellation class

Where did the measurements for the Constellation-class come from? I don't recollect ever seeing a decent top-down dorsal view of the ship where we could accurately measure it out. Does anyone have dimensions of the studio model?

For that matter, if anyone has dimensions of any of the studio models (Olympic, Nebula, etc), maybe we could all hash this out over on LCARS 24's other thread...
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8 2009, 07:56 PM   #53
MichaelS
Fleet Captain
 
MichaelS's Avatar
 
Location: Austria
Re: Constellation class

Measurements probably come from the STM article.

As for the dimensions of the studio model: I don't think they're known, but if people were to find out what size the Macross kit pieces were that Greg Jein used (as mentioned by Doug Drexler in his blog article), they could use a photo like this one and do the extrapolations from there.
__________________
Exploring the Universe
Out now: Star Trek: A Choice of Catastrophes
MichaelS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10 2009, 02:42 AM   #54
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Constellation class

Whoa, cool, MichaelS, thanks for the links.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2009, 08:31 AM   #55
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Constellation class

JNG, you mentioned a volumetrics thing earlier, are you talking the ST-vs-SW volumetrics chart, or another chart? If another chart, would you mind posting a link?
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2011, 02:09 PM   #56
Atrahasis
Cadet
 
Re: Constellation class

In my opinion, there's very little chance that the Constellation weighs in at anything close to 700,000 MT, a figure of 370-380,000 (or less) is ideal, and here's why:

From the Franz Joseph Technical Manual, where it all began, we can derive the approximate mass of a single warp engine by subtracting the mass of the Destroyer from the Transport:

126,500 - 95,000 = 31,500.

You can derive other useful approximate figures like the mass of a saucer plus dorsal = 63,500, or the mass of the secondary hull = 62,500, or the mass of the Heavy Cruiser without warp engines = 126,000.

Let's say the mass of the Constellation's hull is twice that of the Heavy Cruiser's = 252,000. If we assume each warp engine is at least 31,500 then we get a total mass of 378,000.

I just don't see where anyone would get that 700,000 figure from, unless I'm totally missing something? Maybe by taking the total volume of the ship including the warp engines and applying some kind of average density to that? But that's not a very good way for obvious reasons. You need to account for how much the engines weigh first, and then you can do all the volumetric analyses you like on the rest of the hull.
Atrahasis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2011, 04:20 PM   #57
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Constellation class

^ I think, IIRC, what we were looking at was not actually tonnage of the ship if you were able to weigh the components thereof on Earth's surface, but rather tonnage of seawater displaced if you were able to submerge the entire ship in seawater. Since we have no way of knowing how much materials such as warp coils weigh (though there is a figure in the TNG TM, there's no corresponding measurement for TOS warp coils) or the materials that make up the rest of the ship, it's the only real way we can get any idea for any kind of a "tonnage" measurement for Trek ships.

The foundation for the 700k figure came from a Volumetrics website (the link to it might be found above somewhere), but most of it was from the Constellation-class primary hull, which was about 3.5x the size of a regular Constitution-refit-class p-hull. Constellation's is two Con-re saucers atop each other, with a lot of shit in between them, and expanded outwards in diameter by about another 40-50 meters or so.
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2011, 05:22 PM   #58
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

Depends also on how one views the supporting materials.

FJ's manual and blueprints list measurements in "Deadweight". Deadweight is the stuff that is carried like people, cargo, consumables but does not include the rest of the ship like the structure, engines, etc. FJ's materials do not list the weight or mass of ship components.

"The Making of Star Trek" lists the mass or weight without the "Deadweight" designation however it appears to have changed over the years as it wasn't used in dialogue.

Scotty on "Mudd's Women" says the Enterprise is "almost a million gross tons".

Voyager has been mentioned twice in dialogue to be "700,000 metric tons".

The Constellation could be anywhere between 200,000 and 1,000,000 tons due to her 4 warp nacelles and either adjusted up or down for technology
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24 2011, 05:29 PM   #59
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Constellation class

^ Tonnage in this sense has nothing to do with weight in a gravity well or weight of displaced water, but, rather, mass, which is unaffected by gravity. Weight is the result of two massive bodies accelerating towards each other. Pounds and their related English tons are a measurement of weight. So a guy who weighs 220 pounds of Earth will weigh about 37 pounds on the Moon. But kilograms and their related metric tons are a measurement of mass which is just the mass, not it's relationship with any other mass. Therefore a 220 pound guy would have a mass of about 100 kilograms, and that never changes based on where he's standing. (BTW, the metric system does cover weight in the sense of pounds (i.e. the acceleration of interacting masses) using a unit called "Newtons." This is also sometimes used to describe force application, such as metric torque screwdrivers being set for newton-centimeters instead of pound-inches.)

Therefore, I think it's fair to claim that a starship's tonnage would be the metric measurement of straight up mass rather than how much water it displaces, as if it were a wet-navy ship.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25 2011, 06:31 AM   #60
Atrahasis
Cadet
 
Re: Constellation class

That's a fascinating point about Deadweight Tonnage being the cargo and things it carries, I did not know that!

For years I thought it was the same as displacement.

Is there a site that lists the actual mass of the TOS-TMP ships then?
Atrahasis 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 03:43 PM.

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