Mass of the Constitution class Enterprise?

[DSG2k]

1. Built lightly like Intrepids, a Type-6 shuttle would mass 30 tonnes . . . 110 tonnes by Constitution standards.

2. As follows:

It's really only problematic when you look at TNG (and up) numbers, which are rediculously heavy.

It's worse than you think.

Let's ponder Voyager. The nacelle densification theory that's been espoused here argues that over time nacelle coils have become more and more dense, increasing their mass but increasing the ship's speed. Voyager, as perhaps the fastest ship and with the smallest nacelles, would seem to be the pinnacle achievement.

If we assumed the same 771 kg/m^3 that the 190,000-tonne fallacy plus the Franz Joseph nacelle mass argues for the Constitution, then we can run some numbers.

Voyager's volume is 625,885 cubic meters. After ~17,523m^3 for each nacelle is removed, we are left with 590,839m^3 for everything from the pylons to the bow, just as with the Constitution.

That 590,839m^3 multiplied by 771 kg/m^3 gives us a mass of 455,536,869kg . . . about 455,500 metric tonnes. If there was no change from the Franz Joseph nacelle density (1257 kg/m^3) then Voyager's nacelles would only mass an extra 44,050 tonnes.

But canonically, the Intrepid class would have to have nacelles massing 244,500 tonnes, or just over a third of the mass of the ship. That would require a density on par with solid iron at 6,977kg/m^3.

That nacelle mass is more than the entire Constitution class ship at the non-canon 190,000 tonne value, and at a fraction of the volume. Further, the ship would be even more rear-heavy than her landing legs would indicate.

Does that really jive with your view?

 

[DSG2k]

I don't refer to the 'Mudd's Women' episode because there are many numerous techonlogy errors within the script (as was normal for the first batch of episodes). The very line where the mass is referenced is also otherwise an error in light of what Trek eventualy settled into.

Lithium versus dilithium . . . so what? That hardly invalidates the entire episode. It was, as we know from backstage reports, a deliberate retcon to go with dilithium afterward.

I haven't seen the retcon of the Constitution mass. The mass of Voyager (which is "what Trek eventually settled into") is consistent with the Constitution mass, given that Voyager would be expected to be lighter overall and is dozens of years more advanced.

 

[Vance]

The problem is that the numbers from TNG and onward just doesn't make a lot of sense at all. Even if you mass up the TOS to what TNG would suggest, you get ships that are solid bricks of heavy metals. And, as you say, you're getting nacelles at TNG era that are iron... problematic at best.

The only real answer is to assume that the writers (primarily Okuda in this case) royally screwed up the masses. Since we see the internals of each ship, and stuff being manhandled, and hull plates played with, etc, we know that nothing on ship masses like that.

Though FJ's nacelles may be heavy, we can fudge that to some degree, as I said. But we cannot realistically up the fudging to what the TNG tech manual (and beyond) would demand.

 

[DSG2k]

And, as you say, you're getting nacelles at TNG era that are iron... problematic at best.

Whoa whoa whoa . . . that only happens if we take the rest of Voyager (i.e. sans nacelles) and subject it to the erroneous Constitution info (the 190,000 tonne fallacy plus the Franz Joseph nacelle mass) plus the nacelle densification claim. Only then do you end up with iron nacelles . . . i.e. only if you make use of your own preferences instead of the canon info.

(Incidentally, I'm still waiting on the Tech Manual reference that nacelles densify over time to do their job better.)

Perhaps even more remarkable is that now that you've been shown what happens with the canon Voyager mass if the non-canon datapoints about the Connie get used, your next action is to dispute the canon Voyager mass! As you say, "The problem is that the numbers from TNG and onward just doesn't make a lot of sense at all {...}we cannot realistically up the fudging to what the TNG tech manual (and beyond) would demand."

To reiterate, you can't do that. Here's the basic story:

1. You have two canon datapoints (the masses of 1701 and 74656).
2. You have a non-canon datapoint (alt-1701).
3. Canon 1701 and 74656 win.

Previously, you guys thought you'd change the game. Here's what you were trying to do:

1. You have two canon datapoints (the masses of 1701 and 74656).
2. You have two non-canon datapoints (alt-1701 and non-canon 1701-D).
3. alt-1701 + non-canon 1701-D + 74656 beat Canon 1701.

But don't you see how wrong that is? All you did was to add more non-canon on top of alt-1701 to keep going after the Canon 1701 mass. There's no limit to how much you could do that, you know . . . you could take 40 gabillion Pocket Books factoids that happen to work together and, by the same reasoning, override anything said in the show.

And indeed, that is what has been happening. In this thread, within a page or so, we've seen any number of claims being used to try to peck at the canon figures. The non-canon 1701-D mass is not receiving further mention right now, but instead we have the Franz Joseph nacelles, the apparently-fanon nacelle densification theory, the various complaints about Roddenberry, and so on . . . in addition to the 190,000 tonne fallacy.

But the reality still is that the non-canon . . . and even backstage info . . . is irrelevant in the face of the canon smackdown. So here's how I do it:

1. You have two canon datapoints (the masses of 1701 and 74656).
2. You have non-canon datapoints (alt-1701, FJ nacelles, non-canon 1701-D, nacelle densification, Roddenberry, et cetera).
3. Canon 1701 and 74656 are used together to understand the Trek universe.

At no point is canon threatened or questioned by non-canon tomfoolery.

The very reason the concept of canon gets brought up so often among fans is because their discussions frequently require an objective standard to start from . . . a basis of discussion.

An obvious and extreme example would be someone trying to say "well, in my fanfic I established such-and-such". And sometimes, you get people dismissing anything from certain later Trek series.

Meanwhile, regular fans might simply be wanting to discuss Federation history or technology or whatever and they're trying to decide between them whether such-and-such date from such-and-such non-TV non-movie source should be allowed. The canon policy gives an objective third-party (and important-party) guideline for how to deal with that.

That way there's no digging through impossible-to-find materials (I have an FJ TM, though, so don't think that's the issue), wrangling over rumors of what was going on backstage or during the lean years of Trek, no guessing as to Roddenberry's motivations, or any other crap like that. You take the show for what it is as best as can be done and roll with it.

Makes the life of a geek a lot simpler.

 

[Vance]

You're under the impression that I care about 'canon' (which, by the way, doesn't even currently exist), or that I remotely think I should yield to it even when it doesn't even remotely make any sense.

If you're arguing the technical aspect of the show, we have to accept that there's an awful lot of outright stupid in the 40 years of the franchise, and some of it does indeed go all the way back to when the show was first pitched. Part of the whole point of exercises like this is to make more 'realistic' sense of the material that Hollywood throws at us.

I would never, ever, trust Hollywood to design a car based on The Dukes of Hazard, so why are we supposed to religiously accept the same people giving us 'science!' for Star Trek? More importantly, why should people who actually do have a technical background (such as Franz Joseph) yield to people who can't even get the layman's definition of a black hole right?

 

[USS Jack Riley]

As for the secondary hull, we know that the entire aft section is usually either air or vaccuum. That, then, leaves only the forward part of that hull unaccounted for. If we assume engineering is in there, then we know it's organized like the saucer section, and therefore pretty light itself. So we're down to only the defelector/sensor assembly being heavy somehow.

Agreed on most parts, but have a question for you. Is the ship's stores in the primary or secondary hull? Wouldn't the stores have mass as well (I'm talking material for the quartermaster to make Nazi uniforms, food, water, etc.). I know there was a great deal of recycling on board (there would have to be, given the length of the mission), but there would also have to be some food and materials in storage, too. Right? IO am not talking the food and materials itself (since that is left out of the equation), but the machinery to move this stuff through out the ship and to store it (refrigeration units, etc.)

 

[Vance]

That's a tough question, because Matt Jefferies clearly put the stores in the secondary hull (right behind the dish) in his sketches, yet they would logically NEED to be in the saucer along with the life-support material, etc. Even with TOS's limited replication technology, it's gotta be somewhere.

The question is, how much mass would you need? At zero recyclying efficiency, you would need about 4700MT raw mass for the food and drink supplies for the entire crew, for the entire mission (on the upper estimate end). We know that the Enterprise, however, does take on supplies during that mission, and that there's pretty hefty recycling going on.

But even assuming that much tonnage for edible unprocessed biomass, the other questions would be 'how would it physically be stored'. That's a bigger question, since we don't actually know what the pre-replication material actually looks like. Assuming this is all simple water in density, we're at a whopping 4,700,000L , or, conveniently (thanks to the metric system) 4,700 cubic meters.

This would only be about 2 percent of a FJ Liquids container, or a cube about 17 meters along each side. Now, simply slicing that into thirds to fit within the saucer would require a slab of about 6m x 51m x 17m, or maximizing it, 6m x 30m x 30m. That's certainly doable in the primary hull, but it would take up a significant part of the outer ring someplace.

But, again, that's assuming ZERO efficiency, with a generous diet, never topping off, with the biomass the density of water, with erroring on the side of 'big' in my rounding. Even simple compression of the biomass in volume would dramatically reduce this volume, making the 'saucer' placement of the stores far more reasonable (and even likely).

 

[USS Jack Riley]

^^And don't forget M/AM storage. Granted, neither is included in the figure (and rightfully so), but the equipment (tanks for the matter and magnetic bottles, or the Trek equivalent thereof, with all the attendant equipment for the anti-matter) and the method for delivery of the M/AM to the reactor, plus the delivery systems for the aforementioned stores.

Just additional food for thought. Your mileage may vary.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Vance,

What source says the shuttle craft masses in at 9 metric tons?

 

[Timo]

Part of the whole point of exercises like this is to make more 'realistic' sense of the material that Hollywood throws at us.

But that means abandoning the absurd idea that the ship moves at warp speed, too. Or the absurd idea that Spock is half-human, half-Vulcan. Or the absurd idea that transporters exist.

Accepting that the ship in no way resembles today's various vehicles or buildings sounds like a no-brainer, in both senses of the word. It's something we can accept fairly easily, as it requires no disbelief in currently known laws of nature (unlike warp drive, Spock or transporters). Also, it might just as well tie in with the other absurdities, such as the ship's ability to do warp, or generate fake gravity, or stop phaser beams.

Star Trek may exist in both Desily/Paramount/CBS -created and fan-created forms. But if the latter contradicts the former, it no longer is Star Trek as such. It's a different universe that uses the same characters. Sure, aired Trek has contradicted itself often enough - but not on this, not on the mass of starships. It gives us two datapoints which aren't directly contradicted by the aired material. Why should we contradict them, then? "Realism" sounds awfully hollow an excuse when we fail to contradict Spock.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Praetor]

Timo, that was an excellent post.

 

[DSG2k]

I would never, ever, trust Hollywood to design a car based on The Dukes of Hazard

Canonically, it's Hazzard. But feel free to ignore that.

 

[Vance]

Vance,

What source says the shuttle craft masses in at 9 metric tons?

8.5MT from the Technical Manual. FASA 1st edition has it at 9MT.

 

[Praetor]

FWIW, the runabout is stated as having a typical mass of 158.7 metric tonnes in the DS9:TM.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Vance,

Which is FJ's work, right? If so, I'm not sure how valuable this information is. Keep in mind we're debating the mass of the Enterprise -- which in FJ's work was listed as 190,000 mt.


Praetor,

Yeah, and the Enterprise D is listed at several million metric tons... I'm not sure how reliable that is

 

[Vance]

The problem is that you have a situation where TNG and beyond ships are vessels made of solid chunks of metal - no room for crew, cabins, etc. Yet, we know that a) the components of this ship can be and are manipulated by hand in 1G environments, and b) the whole thing is pretty much hollow and monocoque. That's the conflict, there's no way that the 'canon' numbers given match the shown behavior of these materials. Since the 'datapoint' of the masses given is the one that's sorely off, and given by people who have no knowledge of technology and science, that's the one I'm going to ignore.

Which is FJ's work, right? If so, I'm not sure how valuable this information is. Keep in mind we're debating the mass of the Enterprise -- which in FJ's work was listed as 190,000 mt.

Based on Jefferies' numbers, as it turns out. So, the man who designed the ship pegged her at 190,000, and did so based on his knowledge of aeronautics and sea-going vessels.

This is countered by a bunch of guys who think the 'event horizon' of a black hole is like a giant sheet of glass, and that going 'infinite speed' turns you into fish.

Fuck canon.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Vance,

Still, Matt Jeffries seemed to have derived the weight figures more from sea-going vessels than aeronautics.

The Enterprise is not a sea-going vessel that can fly in space... it's a spacecraft that's so big that internally it feels like you're in a ship. There actually is a difference. Spacecraft and Aircraft are lighter than sea-going vessels.

Regardless if we were to base it's weight on sea-going vessels based on internal volume -- I don't see any reason why the Enterprise would be any more than 90,000 to 100,000 metric tons. A modern-day aircraft carrier (Enterprise-Class = 89,000 to 90,000 tons / Nimitz Class = 93,000 to 97,000 tons) probably as the same internal volume as the TOS Enterprise if not a touch more.


CuttingEdge100

 

[Vance]

That's just it, if we accept a pretty hefty 190,000MT due to the engines involved rather than the 1,000,000MT that is being argued, I'm aruging that the later official numbers are complete nonsense.

As for the comparison with the USS Nimitz, the Enterprise, in comparison shots, is just about twice the volume used.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Vance,

The Enterprise has twice the internal volume as the Nimitz?


CuttingEdge100

 

[Vance]

The Enterprise has twice the internal volume as the Nimitz?

Pretty close. The Constitution class is significantly deeper, but loses considerable usable volume due to the pylons. The overall 'surface area' is also considerably larger.

There was a good pic somewhere with the Enterprise next to the Nimitz for comparison, but I can't find it now.