Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by westwords2020, Nov 23, 2008.

  1. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Steelport
    Tankers are actually not getting bigger, there has been more interest in smaller ones, there hasn't been a ship the size of Jahre Viking (Knox Knevis) and the Batillus class since the 70's/80's out of those only Jahre Viking still remains.

    Jahre Viking isn't allowed to sail the seas anymore partially because of her size and also because she's a single hulled tanker.

    As for size... well she is enormous.
    260,941 GT
    214,793 NT
    Length: 458.45 m (1,504.10 ft)
    Beam: 68.8 m (225.72 ft)
    Draft: 29.8 m (97.77 ft)
    Capacity: 564,650 DWT

    As for why she was so big, only one answer: greed a 100.000 ton tanker doesn't need 10 times the engine power of a 10.000 ton tanker, also the larger tankers get the more efficient they get in tems of water resistance and the like.

    I wonder if this all goes for starships as well especially warp power and so on, does a Galaxy which is about 6-8 times as big as a Connie need 6-8 times the amount of power to reach the same speeds or less like 4-5 times?
     
  2. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    It's actually 3.757 times.










    I made that up. Just now.
     
  3. KlingonPredator

    KlingonPredator Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    According to a line uttered by Kirk in TOS,the Enterprise weighed one million tons...more than any supertanker ever conceived. It was an episode in which they were losing the dilithuim crystals and had to get more to keep the engines operating...Mudds women maybe?
     
  4. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Close to a million gross tons... That makes 300,000 tons apiece. :evil:

    ...Yes, that's the episode. It seems doubtful that the whole ship would be dense enough to yield that sort of total mass, so probably some parts of it are superdense. Possibly the warp engines? (Or the junior navigator?)

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  5. Ronald Held

    Ronald Held Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Location:
    On the USS Sovereign
    That's a million tons of inertial mass?
     
  6. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Steelport
    Depends on what kind if tonnage was used I guess, was it gross register tonnage, net tonnage, deadweight tonnage or displacement? ;)
     
  7. westwords2020

    westwords2020 Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    A starship would not be bounded by the limits of a supertanker though it does serve to illustrate just how big an ocean going vessel can be built with current technology.
    As for the aircraft carrier, a design study postulated an ultra large carrier with 1500 feet in length and enough width so that the island was in the center with launch/recovery on either side of the Island and plenty of space above and in the hangar for aircraft stowage. As the Mobile Offshore Base will not be built then we shhould look at the Ultra Large Carrier even if USN bases have to be dregged to accomodate it and a special drydock built for construction and repair. The current Newport News Dock Ten is 1500 plus feet long, I think.
    The point of all this speculation is to support the concept of a vast ship that Abrams desires but our upsized Ent. will require changes to the model to allow for the size boost.
     
  8. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    'Twas Scotty said that, in Mudd's Women.

    "Almost a million gross tons of vessel..."
     
  9. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Steelport
    ^^Gross Tonnage is a unitless index related to a ship's overall internal volume, Neither Gross Tonnage nor Gross Register Tonnage are measures of the ship's displacement (mass).

    I guess that will make everyones headache even bigger, as for the usual accepted 190.000 tons, that does IMO fits nice into the ballpark when it comes to the mass of the ship.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2008
  10. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    Yes, that always does give me a headache. :)

    190,000 tons always worked well for me - roughly twice the weight of the aircraft carrier Enterprise (if displacement can be equated) (there's that headache again). I attribute the extra mass to dense warp coils.
     
  11. westwords2020

    westwords2020 Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Forbin, does it matter if the Ent is doubled in dimensions with an eight fold increase in volume? After all, the dimensions currently established were never on screen and cannot be ultimatly considered canon until an actor mouths the words 400 by 947 with 24 decks.
    I notice you have an advanced version of the Ralph McQuarry version of the Enterprise which is noticable larger than the TOS version.
     
  12. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    Of course it matters. The scale and size has been established for 40 years. It was seen on screen in the Jefferies diagram shown on a monitor in The Enterprise Incident:
    http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/3x02/The_Enterprise_Incident_046.JPG

    And my avatar is a kitbash of mine, based loosely on McQuarrie's UNUSED proposal, and not meant to be the Enterprise. How would someone's kitbashes have any bearing on the show?
     
  13. ancient

    ancient Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    There is plenty on room for canon wiggling of the scale. (The hangar bay, anyone?) Of course, in TOS they didn't always get scales to make sense - like the shuttle interior. Fans have been fudging scales to get things to fit for quite some time. Of course, doubling the size of the ship would be a little excessive. Then again, this is an all-new version of Trek so they can do whatever they please.
     
  14. CuttingEdge100

    CuttingEdge100 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    In what particular way is there problems with the shuttle-bay size?


    CuttingEdge100
     
  15. ancient

    ancient Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    The Hangar model used during TOS implies a very large space, that cannot fit into a 947 foot ship.
     
  16. Herkimer Jitty

    Herkimer Jitty Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Dayglow, New California Republic
    Of course, you can only scale it up so much until the windows are rediculously oversized.
     
  17. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Umm, yes, Gross Register Tons are measures of volume, which is why they are never called just plain Gross Tons or Tons, due to the massive potential for confusion.

    But gross tons certainly are a measure of mass (or of weight, to be accurate, since the terminology dates back to the era when tons and pounds were simply units of the gravitational force, and the property of mass wasn't separately considered). Since that expression is currently used to separate the 2240-pound (1016-kilogram) gross/long/imperial ton from the 2000-pound (907-kilogram) short/ ton, one could readily assume that gross ton in the future is the poetic equivalent of the 1000-kilogram ton.

    It would be different if Scotty really spoke of Gross Tonnage, which, much like Gross Register Tonnage, is a measure of volume. But he speaks of gross tons, which confusingly enough have nothing to do with Gross Tonnage, and never had.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  18. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Steelport
    ^^ I told you, headaches headaches headaches ;)
     
  19. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    This is why I like airplanes better than ships. :vulcan:
     
  20. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    Steelport
    Aw come on, battleships are fun. ;)