RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,341
Posts: 5,444,808
Members: 24,965
Currently online: 586
Newest member: MattSmith786

TrekToday headlines

Trek UglyDolls First Look
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

New Star Trek Select Action Figure
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

Trek Actors In Elsa & Fred
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

The Red Shirt Diaries #9
By: T'Bonz on Oct 28

Greenwood Cast In Truth
By: T'Bonz on Oct 28

Cumberbatch In Talks For Strange
By: T'Bonz on Oct 28

Two New Trek Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Oct 27

Meaney On Playing Historical Figure Durant
By: T'Bonz on Oct 27

Saldana: Balancing Work And Motherhood
By: T'Bonz on Oct 27

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24


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 April 27 2011, 10:12 AM   #76
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constellation class

It might of course also be that the Intrepid class is so new that its inability to reach its specified cruising and top speeds has not yet been discovered by the time the Voyager embarks on her first mission.

High warp has repeatedly surprised Starfleet's best engineers and theoreticians: it is at the same time so mundane that any field technician can strive for it by tinkering with the hardware, and so exotic and theoretically misunderstood that all it takes to fly across the universe in a minute is a single "oops". Perhaps the test flights of the Intrepid were flukes that could never be repeated? Perhaps something similar happened when Starfleet thought it had verified transwarp well enough to build the full-scale Excelsior?

The way warp is set up in the TNG Tech Manual, a ship can have several cruising speeds, with speeds ill suited for cruising in between (the sawtooth pattern of power expenditure as a function of warp factor and thus of speed). The Voyager could then boast on eleven functional cruising speeds, even though the topmost of them isn't actually attainable in practice.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 27 2011, 11:12 AM   #77
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Constellation class

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
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.

Well the Betazed helmsman on Voyager said it had a sustainable cruise velocity of 9.975. Which might mean Voyager is even faster.

Considering that Voyager sustained considerable damage to the warp reactor when it incurred all those micro fractures because the Caretaker's crazy method of transport I don't think it's likely Voyager had the same capacity or efficiency it had before hand including the the fact that it was the first core to be tested in deep space. And before anyone thinks that's lame, I would point out that in TNG every time they incurred the most minimal amount of damage or just traveled at high warp for too long they put in for repairs. I think they run at high efficiency because that's what's need for high warp.

Last edited by Saquist; April 27 2011 at 11:25 AM.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 27 2011, 12:30 PM   #78
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
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?
Canonically? How would I know? I come here a treknology novice to ask questions and suck brain. I can only speculate on what might make some modicum of sense.

I guess we all know about the controversy of what Scotty said in TOS: Mudd's Women about gross tons versus what most people take as the mass of Kirk's Enterprise, where in naval or merchant marine terminology gross tonnage means cargo capacity.

While it's unfair to hold busy people to information given in a preliminary manual, a snippet of which I posted in this thread, we might speculate that if that figure is close to correct it could mean fully loaded, versus empty mass given in the aforementioned references, so approximately 1,500,000 M.T. loaded and 700,000 M.T. empty.

We have something similar with trucks. On Yahoo! Autos I can see weight of 4,707 lb. for a certain pickup truck, max./standard payload of 1,693, and GVWR of 6,400.

So the weight (mass) figure means empty but including jack and spare, while GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating) means fully loaded, with people, cargo, fuel, handbags, beverages, etc.

For this particular 2011 model, GVWR isn't double the stated vehicle weight, but for the prototype SUV built by the Rocky Mountain Institute, it might be, since it's made mostly of carbon, with a body that snaps together rather than using bolts (the atomic number of carbon is 6, while that of iron is 26).

But for a starship that might be in the ballpark, given the argument I made previously about probable high carbon content in structural material of future space vessels.

So I could at least speculate that empty mass for the Intrepid class is the twice-stated figure of 700.000 M.T. while the loaded mass might well be the approximately 1,500,000 M.T. stated in that early draft of the Technical Manual.

But, of course, that seems even further from the TOS-oriented view that these figures are already way too high, even though we have a popular figure of 190.000 M.T. for the E versus gross tonnage of "almost a million" mentioned by Scotty.

Last edited by LCARS 24; April 27 2011 at 12:48 PM.
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 27 2011, 01:10 PM   #79
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constellation class

I can only speculate on what might make some modicum of sense.
...Which usually gets one really, really far from what has been established in some obscure bit of canon.

The eeeeevil thing about naval terminology is that it makes no sense even in the real world. Gross tons have nothing to do with gross tonnage, for example. Or more exactly they once did, then did not, then perhaps did again, and currently do not. We could just as well decide all by ourself what it does or does not mean in the 2260s, or the 2370s, or at other arbitrary points of a fictional future. But "nearly a million metric tons" is a good (and currently accurate) translation of Scotty's phrase when the only other canonical datapoint in the entirety of aired Star Trek, namely the mass of the VOY hero ship, is in the same ballpark.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 27 2011, 02:04 PM   #80
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
True as that is, "top cruising speed" and "maximum warp" are two COMPLETELY different things.
Let's take it a step further. "Top cruising speed" and "cruising speed" are two different things as well. "Top cruising speed" is the maximum rated cruising speed under normal conditions.

As much as you think it is a "cop out", Voyager is not operating anywhere near normal conditions. Have you seen any un-damaged Intrepid-class ships?

You can't knock the "top cruising speed" of the ship without at least seeing an undamaged one make a try at it and fail...

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
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.
Is the cruising speed stated anywhere in the TOS series?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 27 2011, 02:19 PM   #81
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constellation class

To the contrary, the series suggested that the ship would select any seemingly arbitrary warp factor for going from A to B. Fandom derived the concept of warp 6 cruising, which is sort of logical in terms of current naval parlance when warp 7 apparently was used in emergencies and anything beyond warp 8 was avoided.

The TNG Tech Manual got fairly clever mileage out of this by claiming that all integer warp factors are cruising speeds, while all non-integer ones are undesirable. From this, we could quite naturally develop the concept of "top cruising speed", that is, the idea that a starship has several cruising speeds, most of which fall on integer warp factors. The twist here is that the cruising speeds above warp 9 are no longer integers. But it might well be that W9.975 is a cruising speed while W9.96 is not...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 27 2011, 03:47 PM   #82
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Constellation class

LCARS 24 wrote: View Post
I guess we all know about the controversy of what Scotty said in TOS: Mudd's Women about gross tons versus what most people take as the mass of Kirk's Enterprise, where in naval or merchant marine terminology gross tonnage means cargo capacity.
Just had a discussion on this very issue for the TOS Enterprise. Even if you laid the Enterprise down as a cube along her greatest axis (length), she would only be a 800,000 GT vessel. Still not even a million there. Really, there's no way in interpreting Scotty's line as making any technical sense but then again it wasn't meant to.

It's a little compounded when you read some of the early information on the seires and get the ship's mass at 190,000 GMT (Gross Metric Tons). This is actually pretty much right for a ship of that size and assuming some hyper-dense materials in construction. This number is used in the series pitch, bibles, and so on throughout production.

The confusion gets to be when the Technical Manual comes out and an anarchonistic use of "Deadweight" is promply put out. In 1969 the terms were formalized so now that Deadweight referred only to cargo and was a measurement of tuns, volume. The fact that the manual refers to 'metric tons' should have been a tip-off. Deadweight is in long tons...

So, really, the USS Enterprise was meant to be 190,000MT LDT (light displacement tonnage) all along. The confusion of terms has since flummoxed Treknologists, of course, particularly when people wanted 'impressive high-sounding numbers' without researching what they mean. (I'm looking at you, Mike Okuda!)

If you really want Scotty's 1MT to mean something, there is a simple explanation and one that ties into the episode fairly well. Since he was referring to a cargo volume, he may have grumbled that 'that jackass ruined a tractor beam rated for 1,000,000 tons of vessel!'. Certainly makes more sense, is more in line with the ship's capabilities, and neatly puts this issue to bed.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 27 2011, 06:38 PM   #83
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

Well, about that business in TOS: Mudd's Women, Scotty seemed depressed and was talking about shortage of lithium. In our time lithium in a medial context refers to pharmaceutical treatment for, among other things, depresssion. And the episode was about men under a temporary spell caused by a novel drug. So extrapolating so much from a poorly worded comment under such conditions doesn't seem attractive. Had they mentioned dilithium crystals and mass of the ship, giving a believable figure, there would be no need to bring up any the effects of the so-called Venus drug to cast doubt.

LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2011, 03:01 AM   #84
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

The exact line from "Mudd's Women":

SCOTT: But it's frustrating. Almost a million gross tons of vessel depending on a hunk of crystal the size of my fist.

1 gross ton = 1,016 kg (just google it)
gross tonnage = index of internal volume
gross ton NOT EQUAL gross tonnage

It's easy to confuse the two because they sound similar but they mean different things although Scotty does not say "gross tonnage"

As to the 190,000 tons it really depends on where one wants to source it. TMOST could indicate 190,000 tons for the whole ship, or FJ's manual/blueprint 190,000 DEADWEIGHT tons for total cargo capacity.

And you have nearly a million gross tons (not tonnage ) for mass from onscreen dialogue. You could then just subtract 190,000 tons from say, 900,000 and get 710,000 tons for a lightweight ship

Interestingly, in an interview when asked about the mass or was it weight? of the Enterprise, James Doohan says something like 400,000 tons.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2011, 04:35 PM   #85
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Constellation class

I guess while we're talking about starship weights, like the 700k figure on the Intrepid as mentioned on-screen, we need to determine if we're talking about the actual weight of the ship and all of the materials that went into its design, or if we're talking about displacement per the Volumetrics figures.

I don't know how much a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier actually weighs, with everything in it...just the displacement figure of around 100,000 tons. And that's the amount of water that the hull of the Nimitz displaces...there's still about 3/4ths of the ship, if not more, above the waterline. Does that mean that a Nimitz-class weighs probably 400,000 tons altogether?
SicOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2011, 05:04 PM   #86
BlobVanDam
Fleet Captain
 
BlobVanDam's Avatar
 
Location: Australia
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to BlobVanDam Send a message via Yahoo to BlobVanDam
Re: Constellation class

In case anyone is interested, I just took my CG model of Voyager, which was built quite accurately to scale (exactly 334.9m / 1131.5ft, so very close to Rick Sternbach's stated length of 1130ft), and used the measure tool in the program to give a measurement of the volume of the model.
Keeping in mind it's not 100% accurate, as the shape is pretty complex for it to measure, it gave me a measurement of 670,600 meters cubed. 1 meter cubed weighs 1 metric ton (unless I'm mistaken about the awesomeness of the metric system), which puts the displacement of Voyager at ~670,000 metric tons.

Considering how close that figure is within a reasonable margin of error, and taking into account any inaccuracies of my model, and the rounding off of the figure in the show, I'd say it's very plausible that it's measured by displacement, or at least a lucky coincidence.
BlobVanDam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2011, 07:34 PM   #87
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Constellation class

Hope nobody needs to actually breathe on that ship, Blob. You're assuming a solid mass at 1m per 1MT.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2011, 07:49 PM   #88
BlobVanDam
Fleet Captain
 
BlobVanDam's Avatar
 
Location: Australia
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to BlobVanDam Send a message via Yahoo to BlobVanDam
Re: Constellation class

Well I'm assuming displacement of the outside shape of the ship only, and not factoring in any true weight measurement.
And I was just giving an interesting note on one way the figure holds pretty close to true, which is just one fan's theory. Much like any other crackpot fan theory, you're free to entirely disregard it.
BlobVanDam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2011, 09:52 PM   #89
Birdog
Commander
 
Birdog's Avatar
 
Location: Birdog
Re: Constellation class

BlobVanDam wrote: View Post
Well I'm assuming displacement of the outside shape of the ship only, and not factoring in any true weight measurement.
And I was just giving an interesting note on one way the figure holds pretty close to true, which is just one fan's theory. Much like any other crackpot fan theory, you're free to entirely disregard it.
Using your volume I get 688,370,900 kg of sea water displaced which is 688,370 metric tonnes. Seeing as that ship is mostly hollow she'd have to be made of something pretty freaking dense to mass the same as her seawater displacement.

Last edited by WWI Flying Ace; April 28 2011 at 10:05 PM.
Birdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2011, 11:15 PM   #90
Terror Grin
Captain
 
Terror Grin's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: Constellation class

Birdog wrote: View Post
BlobVanDam wrote: View Post
Well I'm assuming displacement of the outside shape of the ship only, and not factoring in any true weight measurement.
And I was just giving an interesting note on one way the figure holds pretty close to true, which is just one fan's theory. Much like any other crackpot fan theory, you're free to entirely disregard it.
Using your volume I get 688,370,900 kg of sea water displaced which is 688,370 metric tonnes. Seeing as that ship is mostly hollow she'd have to be made of something pretty freaking dense to mass the same as her seawater displacement.

Not really. A ballistic missile submarine hovering near the surface in order to launch its missiles would have a similar density.
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
Terror Grin 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 04:24 PM.

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