RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,777
Posts: 5,434,415
Members: 24,840
Currently online: 475
Newest member: Reece101

TrekToday headlines

Trek Comics Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

German Volkswagen Campaign Features Trek Actors
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Shatner And Nimoy In Trek 3?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

The Art of John Alvin Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19


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 29 2011, 02:20 AM   #91
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Constellation class

SicOne wrote: View Post
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?
No, that's the total mass. An object in water stops sinking once it displaces a mass of water equal to it's own mass. Not just the volume that happens to be below the waterline.

A ship with a hole in it that is taking on water will sink farther because it's taking on water which makes it more massive and therefore tries to lower itself to find a new displacement level, which causes it to take on even more water and so on, 'til the next stop is Davey Jone's locker. If it's a submarine, then it is designed to take on water and push out water in a controlled manner in order to alter the whole craft's average density which allows the vessel to change it's depth, at least to a certain point. Limitations in the material strength of the hull will allow too much outside water pressure to crush the hull, which will cause breaches, allowing the uncontrolled taking on of water and, once again, you're sunk.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2011, 04:38 AM   #92
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

I guess you are all familiar with the volumetrics site, which puts volume of the Intrepid class at 625,885 cubic meters (although the result from BloBVanDam's beautiful mesh might be a bit more accurate):

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics.html

It also covers much of what has been discussed here about mass of starships and even has a clip from TOS: Mudd's Women that includes Scotty's comment.

About the Nimitz class, displacement is stated to be 95,000 tons (102,000 maximum), and displacement equals total mass, including beer, aircraft, armaments, crew, bilge water, etc. So that's what it weighs loaded. And its volume would be similar to that of the Intrepid class, give or take perhaps 30%.

Tritanium should be lighter than steel for equivalent strength, but I think we can assume that bulkheads and structural members of a starship are many times stronger than those for an aircraft carrier of our time, having seen how hard it is to cut a hole in a corridor wall with a phaser.

And again, the warp coils are heavy. The percentage of superheavy verterium cortenide is low, but the remainder of their structure is still roughly as dense as steel. And the impulse engines and much of the other equipment would be too dense to float.

So where does that leave us? I don't know, but the figure of 700,000 metric tons loaded for the Intrepid class doesn't seem all that unreasonable. There is a comment on the volumetric site that this would work out to density equivalent to that of one of the Apollo modules. One astronaut commented that you could poke a hole in the hull of the Apollo command module with a screwdriver. I would think a starship is made of sterner stuff and provides better protection from radiation, giving it higher average density, also making it hard to get below the 700,000 figure for the Intrepid class.
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2011, 07:12 AM   #93
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constellation class

On the more intuitive-fuzzy side, the Intrepid also supports (pardon the pun) the idea of superheavy nacelles by virtue of sitting on four legs that are located solely on the aft half of a roughly symmetric hull - the half that holds the as such tiny nacelles.

Then again, said legs are so tiny that the ship would have trouble keeping afloat on anything but really solid bedrock even if she only weighed in at seagoing-warship-like tens of thousands of tons. And the same probably goes for the TOS shuttle with its three tiny pads if its nacelles are to be packed with warp coils of similar futuristic density.

But that is reason and logic. Intuition is on the side of a seriously butt-heavy Voyager. Other arguments absent, and even with the two canon mass figures present, we should probably side with intuition rather than against it.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2011, 09:28 AM   #94
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

For what it's worth:

From VOY: Investigations

JANEWAY: The plasma burst irradiated the engine nacelles. The inner layer of the warp coils was burned away.
TORRES: Which means the warp engines are useless until we can rebuild them.
CHAKOTAY: They're made from a substance known as verterium cortenide. Do you know where we can find a source?
NEELIX: Verterium cortenide, if I'm not mistaken, that's a densified composite material.
TORRES: That's right. It's composed of polysilicate verterium and monocrystal cortenum.
JANEWAY: Do you know any nearby source?
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2011, 10:02 AM   #95
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Constellation class

Timo wrote: View Post
On the more intuitive-fuzzy side, the Intrepid also supports (pardon the pun) the idea of superheavy nacelles by virtue of sitting on four legs that are located solely on the aft half of a roughly symmetric hull - the half that holds the as such tiny nacelles.

Then again, said legs are so tiny that the ship would have trouble keeping afloat on anything but really solid bedrock even if she only weighed in at seagoing-warship-like tens of thousands of tons. And the same probably goes for the TOS shuttle with its three tiny pads if its nacelles are to be packed with warp coils of similar futuristic density.

But that is reason and logic. Intuition is on the side of a seriously butt-heavy Voyager. Other arguments absent, and even with the two canon mass figures present, we should probably side with intuition rather than against it.

Timo Saloniemi

Definitely a post I can agree with on all counts.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2011, 01:17 PM   #96
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

The description Torres gave in the exchange above would suggest that verterium cortenide is a complex crystal doped with those heavy elements at intervals that lets them do their thing with the warp plasma, making those nodes quite a bit less heavy than the name suggests. But the hull still has to protect the crew against long-term radiation exposure, and that plus thermal insulation adds mass to the hull over and above what the naval comparison might indicate.

That gives rise to the notion that dilithium crystals might be like that, two, with pairs of lithium atoms held in place at regular intervals like the chromium atoms of a ruby.

And about the size of the landing pads, yes, but maybe somebody realized that, since the pads on the NX shuttlepod are relatively huge, even though it doesn't have warp drive.
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2011, 01:26 PM   #97
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constellation class

To be sure, radiation penetration and heat transfer may be best countered by materials of very low density. Heavy, dense stuff just causes nasty cascade effects when radiation hits it.

OTOH, starships have to cope with high radiation levels when subjected to attack by energy weapons. The technology developed to counter that may be thousands or millions of times more effective than any materials-based tech, and thus may allow starships to be built out of cardboard.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2011, 06:16 PM   #98
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Constellation class

Saquist wrote: View Post
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.
Again, if this was MAXIMUM WARP that would be one thing; maximum velocity is a speed you can theoretically reach under ideal circumstances with your engines in tip-top shape and nothing else wrong with it. You cruising velocity is the "normal" speed where the engines are at the apex of their performance/efficiency curve; any faster and they waste energy and strain themselves, any slower and they're slightly under-performing.

It's like telling someone your car gets up to 50mph in third gear and then having someone ask you "How come it never goes faster than 45?"

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.
At MAXIMUM WARP, yes. Not at their cruising velocity, which by definition is a velocity the engines can sustain during long voyages WITHOUT putting in for repairs. If Voyager can't do this at 9.975, then that isn't their cruising velocity.

I think they run at high efficiency because that's what's need for high warp.[/QUOTE]
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2011, 06:24 PM   #99
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

Then why the distinction of a Top Cruising speed instead of just cruising speed?

Btw, if the top speed in 3rd is 50 and they rarely go past 45 then perhaps they just don't like redlining the engine but then I'm not sure this was a good analogy to use...
blssdwlf is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2011, 06:34 PM   #100
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Constellation class

LCARS 24 wrote: View Post
I guess you are all familiar with the volumetrics site, which puts volume of the Intrepid class at 625,885 cubic meters (although the result from BloBVanDam's beautiful mesh might be a bit more accurate):

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics.html

It also covers much of what has been discussed here about mass of starships and even has a clip from TOS: Mudd's Women that includes Scotty's comment.

About the Nimitz class, displacement is stated to be 95,000 tons (102,000 maximum), and displacement equals total mass, including beer, aircraft, armaments, crew, bilge water, etc. So that's what it weighs loaded. And its volume would be similar to that of the Intrepid class, give or take perhaps 30%.

Tritanium should be lighter than steel for equivalent strength, but I think we can assume that bulkheads and structural members of a starship are many times stronger than those for an aircraft carrier of our time, having seen how hard it is to cut a hole in a corridor wall with a phaser.

And again, the warp coils are heavy. The percentage of superheavy verterium cortenide is low, but the remainder of their structure is still roughly as dense as steel. And the impulse engines and much of the other equipment would be too dense to float.

So where does that leave us? I don't know, but the figure of 700,000 metric tons loaded for the Intrepid class doesn't seem all that unreasonable. There is a comment on the volumetric site that this would work out to density equivalent to that of one of the Apollo modules. One astronaut commented that you could poke a hole in the hull of the Apollo command module with a screwdriver. I would think a starship is made of sterner stuff and provides better protection from radiation, giving it higher average density, also making it hard to get below the 700,000 figure for the Intrepid class.
The author was here a couple months ago advertising the latest round of updates. One thing we discussed was upper and lower bounds of density for starships. The masses of these ships is apparently derived from the density of the Apollo capsules in the 1960s, which is had an average density of about 800 to 900kg per cubic meter. I am not entirely sure what this calculation was based on since nobody showed original numbers, but he got a bit pissy when I pointed out that virtually all modern spacecraft OTHER than Apollo have densities of about one tenth of that, between 70 and 90kg per cubic meter. The heaviest by far is the space shuttle, with a density of about 210kg per cubic meter, and the lightest is the Soyuz orbital module with a density of around 55kg/m.

Assuming Starfleet equips some of its ships with relative thick hull plating, I'd be surprised if a starship's average density was higher than 200kg per cubic meter (lots of internal space there that isn't going to be armor plated) and it's probably much lower. At that rate, a ship 630,000 cubic meter starship should have a mass of around 120,000 tons.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2011, 10:08 PM   #101
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Constellation class

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post

Again, if this was MAXIMUM WARP that would be one thing; maximum velocity is a speed you can theoretically reach under ideal circumstances with your engines in tip-top shape and nothing else wrong with it. You cruising velocity is the "normal" speed where the engines are at the apex of their performance/efficiency curve; any faster and they waste energy and strain themselves, any slower and they're slightly under-performing.
Just giving you the facts.

It's like telling someone your car gets up to 50mph in third gear and then having someone ask you "How come it never goes faster than 45?"

At MAXIMUM WARP, yes. Not at their cruising velocity, which by definition is a velocity the engines can sustain during long voyages WITHOUT putting in for repairs. If Voyager can't do this at 9.975, then that isn't their cruising velocity.

I think they run at high efficiency because that's what's need for high warp.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

You offer this as (I guess) a counter argument but I'm not really seeing the opposing facts. They never replaced their warp core, A pressure vessel is a very finite container. Voyager herself might be able to get to those speeds but the Core may be compromised that it can no longer stand the high energy reactions for high warp, we know the engines need way more power at warp nine and above so that it starts to become infinite. The micro fractures might mean the plasma flow is unstable aswell. After all you can mend a containment vessel but ultimately it has to be replaced because it's basically in pieces.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30 2011, 03:53 AM   #102
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Constellation class

Saquist wrote: View Post
They never replaced their warp core, A pressure vessel is a very finite container. Voyager herself might be able to get to those speeds but the Core may be compromised that it can no longer stand the high energy reactions for high warp
Which, again, invalidates the concept that warp 9.975 is Voyager's CRUISING speed. If it was, the core would be designed to maintain those kinds of pressures and outputs as a matter of routine travel with minimal maintenance; going FASTER would require the engines being in tip-top condition.

After all you can mend a containment vessel but ultimately it has to be replaced because it's basically in pieces.
Except that Voyager routinely flies around at speeds around warp eight or nine, where pressures wouldn't be that much lower than warp 9.9. If that little bit of added pressure is no longer sustainable because of some damage that they are unable to repair (making it, in essence, the only thing on the ship they can't fix despite the presence of a backup warp core in the engineering section) then it again calls into question of in what sense 9.975 is Voyager's CRUISING velocity.

It simply isn't, and never was. "Maximum sustainable cruising velocity" in this context is pretty much just hype literature and not a halfway realistic figure.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30 2011, 04:42 AM   #103
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Constellation class

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Which, again, invalidates the concept that warp 9.975 is Voyager's CRUISING speed.
I disagree.


If it was, the core would be designed to maintain those kinds of pressures and outputs as a matter of routine travel with minimal maintenance; going FASTER would require the engines being in tip-top condition.
Like I showed it seems in the 24th century the ships aren't designed for the kind of minimal maintenance you're describing. Once more if the Enterprise D needed Starbase repairs just for traveling at high warp for days (which would be the absolute minimal of maintenance) then clearly a cracked pressure vessel is more serious.

Everything designed has a tolerance built in by the engineers. You're making the error that these designers and engineers PLAN for the design to be compromised and continue to work at optimal levels. That's simply not true. You may protect the warp core from damage but you do not design it to take damage, it's NOT a structural component, It's not a bracing, a cross member or load bearing support girder. That's a design intent external of the purpose of the device which is to generate power and energy. If you compromise the core's integrity any engineer will tell you that it should be replaced because it's integrity will continue to degrade. After being damage it no longer fits the parameters laid out.

If we ask an engineer "how much pressure can the core take" He will give the tolerance that were built into and may even tell you how far above those limits you can go.

If we ask an engineer "how long can we continue to use a compromised core?" He'll shrug and tell you, "There is no way to know. "can we repair it the fractures," He could say yes or no but he'll definitely tell you the repairs well have no safety ratings or guarantees.

Voyager was lucky to have a warp core after the Caretaker slay ride. You may design a core to survive fractures so it won't breach but you never design it to operate at optimal levels with fractures....

That's just stupid.
There is no way could possibly know with micro fractures that one of them wasn't potentially a breach waiting to happen in every situation of micro fractures unless you knew exactly how it was going to fracture every single time. Like tempered glass designed not to shatter.



Except that Voyager routinely flies around at speeds around warp eight or nine, where pressures wouldn't be that much lower than warp 9.9.
Galaxy Class speeds, sure.
But Intrepid is more than 3x faster. According to the chart that is WAY more than merely three times the power.
There are a number components as to why, Hull Geometry, Variable Warp pylons. and ( field enhancers on the hull), It's like saying If I can melt nickel in the same container then I can melt Iron too. And that's not true.

Voyager routinely runs at warp 6. It was said so many times in the series it's almost all that the ship seemed capable of doing. I would look at the episode Kes left because the Core was operating above 120%

But essentially we've never seen a type nine warp core working at optimal efficiency and speed. If you want to say it's unrealistic because they never addressed this amazing speed in dailougue to explain why Voyager never did, it's one thing. or that it was a miss understand...that's one thing but there is still a considerable allowance of the possibility, which isn't like the Prometheus which was said to be the fastest ship in the Federation and yet was caught by A Nebula Class, two Defiant Class ships and an Akira of considerable age. Warp 9.9 my butt...
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30 2011, 05:19 AM   #104
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Constellation class

The Soyuz numbers sound a bit low, IMHO. Looking at the Soyuz TMA, I'm getting an average density of ~250 kg/m3 (all three modules). The orbital module is about 164 kg/m3, re-entry module is 388 kg/m3 and service module 232 kg/m3.

The Apollo CSM comes in at about 437 kg/m3 (CM = 355 kg/m3 + SM = 463 kg/m3).

Mercury Capsule is at 446 kg/m3.

A few more numbers:
M-1 Abrams Tank is about 1,826 kg/m3.
Battleship Iowa, 216 kg/m3.
USS Nimitz, 276 kg/m3.

USS Voyager at 700,000 tons is 1,118 kg/m3.
TOS Enterprise at 947' with Scotty's "nearly a million gross tons" is 4,166 kg/m3.
TOS Enterprise with 190,000 ton TMOST is 879 kg/m3.
TOS Enterprise with 190,000 ton but at 540' in earlier concept is 4,838 kg/m3.

*Mass figures are from wikipedia, volumes from building vehicles in Lightwave.
blssdwlf is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 30 2011, 05:34 AM   #105
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Constellation class

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
The Soyuz numbers sound a bit low, IMHO. Looking at the Soyuz TMA, I'm getting an average density of ~250 kg/m3 (all three modules). The orbital module is about 164 kg/m3, re-entry module is 388 kg/m3 and service module 232 kg/m3.

The Apollo CSM comes in at about 437 kg/m3 (CM = 355 kg/m3 + SM = 463 kg/m3).

Mercury Capsule is at 446 kg/m3.

A few more numbers:
M-1 Abrams Tank is about 1,826 kg/m3.
Battleship Iowa, 216 kg/m3.
USS Nimitz, 276 kg/m3.

USS Voyager at 700,000 tons is 1,118 kg/m3.
TOS Enterprise at 947' with Scotty's "nearly a million gross tons" is 4,166 kg/m3.
TOS Enterprise with 190,000 ton TMOST is 879 kg/m3.
TOS Enterprise with 190,000 ton but at 540' in earlier concept is 4,838 kg/m3.

*Mass figures are from wikipedia, volumes from building vehicles in Lightwave.
Those figures sound like their front the Star Trek Star Wars tech assessment site.
Saquist 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 02:15 AM.

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