The Trek BBS statistics

Posts: 5,883,753
Members: 26,329
Currently online: 404

Star Trek Mega Bloks
By: T'Bonz on Oct 8

By: T'Bonz on Oct 8

Shatner Twits Salmond
By: T'Bonz on Oct 7

Star Trek Beyond Poster
By: T'Bonz on Oct 7

Two New Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 6

Klingon Bathrobe
By: T'Bonz on Oct 6

Koenig Humbled By Trek
By: T'Bonz on Oct 6

The Red Shirt Diaries: Balance of Terror
By: T'Bonz on Oct 5

Salmond: Not Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Oct 5

Star Trek Beyond Dubai Filming
By: T'Bonz on Oct 5

 The Trek BBS Constellation class

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

 April 25 2011, 01:20 PM #61 blssdwlf Commodore Re: Constellation class ^ I thought the same thing for many years till I got into a discussion about the TOS ship mass on this same forum Unfortunately, the actual mass of TOS-TMP ships were never spoken or shown in the series other than Scotty's line about the TOS Enterprise. There are lots of guesses out there so I think it'll come down to your personal preference...
April 25 2011, 07:14 PM   #62
Bill Morris
Commodore

Re: Constellation class

 Atrahasis wrote: 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.
Okay, well, Starship Volumetrics puts the minimum mass at 711,900 (max. over 2 million), while the Daystrom Library puts it at only 325,000 M.T. TrekMania, which usually gives a mass figure, has nothing on it. Neither do Memory Alpha, Memory Beta, nor EAS.

But notice that overall length falls only 34 meters short of that of the Intrepid class, which has canon mass of 700,000 M.T., then picture the relative volume of the warp coils of both, where the Constellation class has nearly six times the coil volume. (That's easier to see if viewing the Constellation class from the top.) Verterium cortenide is approximately 250% as dense as lead. In that regard, I see 700,000 M.T. as quite conservative. And recently Rick Sternbach, in another thread here in TrekTech mentioned the importance of verterium cortenide in the nacelles of Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix, effectively killing the comeback that older ships used something extremely less massive.

Admittedly, the volume of the much lighter tungsten, cobalt, and magnesium in warp coils is much greater than that of verterium cortenide, and the Intrepid class may have denser packaging (more veterium cortenide content for a given coil volume), as implied by its relatively low nacelle volume and high warp rating, but that still leaves any figure below 700,000 M.T. for the Constellation class hard to justify, I would think.

April 25 2011, 09:16 PM   #63
MapleJack
Ensign

Re: Constellation class

LCARS 24 wrote:
 Atrahasis wrote: 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.
Okay, well, Starship Volumetrics puts the minimum mass at 711,900 (max. over 2 million), while the Daystrom Library puts it at only 325,000 M.T. TrekMania, which usually gives a mass figure, has nothing on it. Neither do Memory Alpha, Memory Beta, nor EAS.

But notice that overall length falls only 34 meters short of that of the Intrepid class, which has canon mass of 700,000 M.T., then picture the relative volume of the warp coils of both, where the Constellation class has nearly six times the coil volume. (That's easier to see if viewing the Constellation class from the top.) Verterium cortenide is approximately 250% as dense as lead. In that regard, I see 700,000 M.T. as quite conservative. And recently Rick Sternbach, in another thread here in TrekTech mentioned the importance of verterium cortenide in the nacelles of Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix, effectively killing the comeback that older ships used something extremely less massive.

Admittedly, the volume of the much lighter tungsten, cobalt, and magnesium in warp coils is much greater than that of verterium cortenide, and the Intrepid class may have denser packaging (more veterium cortenide content for a given coil volume), as implied by its relatively low nacelle volume and high warp rating, but that still leaves any figure below 700,000 M.T. for the Constellation class hard to justify, I would think.
I always thought the Voyager's smaller nacelles had more to do with, perhaps, that the ship was not meant to be a deep space explorer or a user of high warp for prolonged periods in relation to ships like the Enterprise-E with it's long nacelles. Hence, shorter nacelles. In addition, the tilting also somehow had an affect with the ship's warp dynamics, allowing for better performance then a fixed set of nacelles. Just thoughts on the matter.

 April 26 2011, 04:45 AM #64 sojourner Admiral     Location: I'm at WKRP Re: Constellation class ^Except for the fact that the nacelles were only used in one position during warp speed, so having them move made little sense. __________________ Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
April 26 2011, 07:10 AM   #65
Crazy Eddie

Re: Constellation class

 LCARS 24 wrote: And recently Rick Sternbach, in another thread here in TrekTech mentioned the importance of verterium cortenide in the nacelles of Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix, effectively killing the comeback that older ships used something extremely less massive.
I don't recall that at all, though it doesn't matter all that much since it wouldn't be canon.

Have we ever determined canonically whether Voyager's 700,000 metric tons is the mass of the ship or the mass of the ship plus fuel and provisions?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

April 26 2011, 08:26 AM   #66
Timo

Re: Constellation class

...Or even something suitably obscure, such as the mass of the ship without her warp coils? The history and present of naval terminology is full of such funny definitions.

 ^Except for the fact that the nacelles were only used in one position during warp speed, so having them move made little sense.
The old excuse for that is that position as such is irrelevant, but movement is crucial: the ship accelerates better by squeezing her warp coils during the jump from sublight to warp.

Timo Saloniemi

April 26 2011, 03:57 PM   #67
Bill Morris
Commodore

Re: Constellation class

newtype_alpha wrote:
 LCARS 24 wrote: And recently Rick Sternbach, in another thread here in TrekTech mentioned the importance of verterium cortenide in the nacelles of Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix, effectively killing the comeback that older ships used something extremely less massive.
I don't recall that at all, though it doesn't matter all that much since it wouldn't be canon.

Have we ever determined canonically whether Voyager's 700,000 metric tons is the mass of the ship or the mass of the ship plus fuel and provisions?
Oh? You posted numerous times in the now-closed TrekTech thread "Why does the Phoenix have Bussard Collectors?" I'll paste in Rick Sternbach's comment, essentially about the thread's question but pertaining to what I mentioned about the warp coils:

 Couple of things - I don't believe the Bussard collectors were necessary as collectors on this sort of early flight. However, the primitive ionizing beams and mag fields projected by the Bussard units would have been critical to debris removal in Phoenix's flight path. Also, for early warp engines, dilithium would not be necessary to do a proof-of-concept flight. Deuterium and antideuterium could still provide hot plasma in the engine system, just not super-tuned. It's the space-warping qualities of the nacelle coil alloys that's the key thing. Meteoric materials, lab-grown verterium cortenide or its nearest equivalent in the higher atomic numbers could achieve FTL. The refinements came in time. Rick
And about Voyager's mass, it was only mentioned in a snide comment by the EMH. A radically different mass was given in the first version of the Star Trek Voyager Technical Manual Technical Guide V1.0, written (before production started) by Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda:

Regardless, 700,000 is the canon figure. If Rick or Mike want to tell us that's a mistake, well . . .

 April 26 2011, 04:37 PM #68 Vance Vice Admiral Re: Constellation class The post TSFS masses of ships are all pretty rediculous anyway. The official numbers from that point on are on the high-side of insane, requiring the ships to be nearly solid chunks of heavy metals. This is what happens when you throw out numbers that sound impressive but have no clue what any of them actually mean.
 April 26 2011, 05:38 PM #69 Bill Morris Commodore Re: Constellation class The tritanium material could be simply trigangulated carbon nanotubes layered like plywood then sintered with titantium, making it reflective, metallic in appearance, very light, and very strong. A few racing cars already have triangulated tube frames, with gives them extreme ridigity compared with ordinary tube frames made of the same alloy. In combination with cross-layering, that would make most of the structure of a starship lighter than if it were made of wood but a lot stronger. Some automakers are already making limited use of carbon body panels, although they probably haven't even thought of triangulating the nanotubes. And in the figure linked below you can see that the warp coils are made of the combinations of the light elements and heavy transuranic compound I mentioned above. http://lcars24.com/schem21.html The body, wheels, other structural parts, and even the seats of this model of Aston Martin are made of carbon nanotubes. The price? Don't ask! Last edited by Bill Morris; April 26 2011 at 05:49 PM.
April 26 2011, 08:29 PM   #70
Espaço-chica

Location: T'Girl
Re: Constellation class

 newtype_alpha wrote: whether Voyager's 700,000 metric tons is the mass of the ship or the mass of the ship plus fuel and provisions?
Did you stop to figure in the tonnage of Tom Paris's ego?

April 27 2011, 02:07 AM   #71
blssdwlf
Commodore

Re: Constellation class

 LCARS 24 wrote: And about Voyager's mass, it was only mentioned in a snide comment by the EMH.
Well, mentioned twice...

"Phage"
EMH: Then replicate one. The design schematics are in the ship’s medical database. The man drives a seven hundred thousand ton starship so somebody thinks he’d make a good medic.

"Relativity"
JANEWAY: Seven hundred thousand metric tons, fifteen decks, and computer systems augmented with bio-neural circuitry, top cruising speed warp nine point nine seven five

April 27 2011, 04:53 AM   #72
Crazy Eddie

Re: Constellation class

 LCARS 24 wrote: Oh? You posted numerous times in the now-closed TrekTech thread "Why does the Phoenix have Bussard Collectors?" I'll paste in Rick Sternbach's comment, essentially about the thread's question but pertaining to what I mentioned about the warp coils
You mean the part where he says "meteoritic materials, lab-grown verterium cortenide or its nearest equivalent in the higher atomic numbers"?

Fermium--atomic number 100--would fit the bill, especially since it has one of the longest half lives of the higher atomic numbers. At room temperature it would have a mass of about 20 grams per cubic centimeter (slightly higher than plutonium). Since even Rick Sternbach never clearly explained how warp coils actually work (nor does anyone really know) then this works perfectly as V-C's "closest equivalent" in the 21st century.

 Regardless, 700,000 is the canon figure. If Rick or Mike want to tell us that's a mistake, well . . .
Which isn't what I asked, is it? Has it ever been established that that 700,000 tons is the mass of the empty ship, or the mass of the ship minus warp coils, or the mass of the ship plus warp coils plus food fuel and provisions?

The space shuttle, for example (just the orbiter) has a loaded mass of about 100 metric tons. About 20 to 25% of that mass is payload, fuel, provisions for the crew and onboard systems... this for a spacecraft that is only supposed to operate for a duration of about a week or so. Smaller craft--the Dragon, for example--have mass fractions skewed on the lighter side so it's more like 10 to 20% of its mass being fuel and provisions.

Voyager is a thousand feet long. If that 700,000 tons is the mass of the fully loaded starship, that figure may very well include 200,000 tons of food, fuel, cargo and additional equipment (not to mention spare parts for all the shuttlecraft they keep trashing). It's also unclear if that 700,000 tons includes the warp coils or not, and it's even more unclear if this is meant to be the ship's EMPTY weight and there's an extra 300,000 tons of provisions on board that simply goes unmentioned.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

April 27 2011, 05:07 AM   #73
Crazy Eddie

Re: Constellation class

 blssdwlf wrote: "Relativity" JANEWAY: Seven hundred thousand metric tons, fifteen decks, and computer systems augmented with bio-neural circuitry, top cruising speed warp nine point nine seven five
Considering warp 9.975 is very clearly NOT Voyager's "cruising speed," nor does the ship ever demonstrate any real capacity to reach this speed, I think I might dismiss both specs as marketing slogans: tech specs that are intentionally nerfed whenever spoken aloud, usually with a wink and a nod, in case the Tal Shiar might be listening.

The Japanese sort of did something like this with the Long Lance torpedo in WW-II. The compressed oxygen tank was labeled the "secondary air tank" on the actual torpedo and in diagrams, with the allies being unaware of the existence of the oxygen tank--or the torpedo's true capabilities--until they captured one intact in 1943.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

April 27 2011, 06:09 AM   #74
blssdwlf
Commodore

Re: Constellation class

newtype_alpha wrote:
 blssdwlf wrote: "Relativity" JANEWAY: Seven hundred thousand metric tons, fifteen decks, and computer systems augmented with bio-neural circuitry, top cruising speed warp nine point nine seven five
Considering warp 9.975 is very clearly NOT Voyager's "cruising speed," nor does the ship ever demonstrate any real capacity to reach this speed,
9.975 is the TOP cruising speed. There are at least 4 examples of Voyager flying around above Warp 9 or mentioned capable of round-tripping above Warp 9. We can allow for damage that the ship probably couldn't hit that top speed for too long, but above Warp 9 cruising speeds didn't seem out of place.

 April 27 2011, 07:35 AM #75 Crazy Eddie Rear Admiral     Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___ Re: Constellation class True as that is, "top cruising speed" and "maximum warp" are two COMPLETELY different things. The TOS Enterprise had a cruising speed of around warp six; this was, by definition, a velocity it could sustain essentially indefinitely. It's maximum warp was in the neighborhood of warp nine; it could sustain THIS velocity for a few minutes or hours before it had to power down. Enterprise-D had a cruising velocity of about warp seven, with a maximum of warp 9.4 or so. It could not sustain higher warp factors without causing alot of extra strain on the engines and on at least one occasion had to stop to make repairs to its engines because of excessive use at high warp. "Our cruising velocity is warp 9.975" means that the ship can sustain that velocity pretty much indefinitely without putting any strain on the engines at all. This SHOULD be equivalent to TOS' warp six, E-D's warp eight, NX-01's warp four. "Allow for damage" is just a copout. You can either sustain that speed or you can't; if you can only sustain it under ideal circumstances, then it isn't your cruising speed, it's your maximum warp. Not that the Romulans would necessarily know this, and thus the constant repetition of this fact is probably just a line of propaganda Starfleet has been pushing for the Intrepids since they were developed. __________________ The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

 Bookmarks

 Tags constellation class, technobabble