How much does the Enterprise weigh?

[Vance]

Not sure where that "asteroids" reference is, but mine has the bit about Spock being half-Martian. Oddly enough, that part is also in TMoST, page 30.

Yet page 30 of my book is still talking about "The Lieutenant". Shouldn't that be some proof for you there that there are indeed different edits and formats available?

Again, the format is presented as an historical document, detailing the original ideas behind the formation of the show. With so many of the other details being clearly changed, it makes no sense whatsofreakingever to alter anything about it.

HAH! It is not a historical document. It is a licensed sundry product designed to sell to Star Trek fans who want some 'behind the scenes' details without compromising the studio in any way. It's a useful book, sure, but it's not a 'book of historical record' by any stretch of the imagination.

Bjo ran Lincoln Enterprises when it started, and Dorothy Fontana saw the format before anybody else did (for all we know, she might've typed the thing up). I think they might have a few thoughts on the subject, especially if any revisionism took place.

And with due respect, neither of them are principals or had a hand in the decision process that far back. I also doubt that either of their memories' are that exacting and detailed about the bloody format of the original pitch, and pestering them on that minutae, when they haven't given it up after all this time, seems like a jackass move to me.

 

[Warped9]

I was just eyeballing the TOS E in comparison with the CVAN-65 and I'm beginning to think that 190,000 might actually be on the heavy side in terms of gross weight, and certainly too heavy for an empty ship.

Question is a naval carrier's weight given as dry without cargo, consumables and personnel or as fully loaded?

 

[Vance]

Question is a naval carrier's weight given as dry without cargo, consumables and personnel or as fully loaded?

Displacement is usually 'fully loaded' with machinery and complement. The Nimitz is 100,000 long ton (101,604 MT DW) at full displacement. There is a 'shortcut' rule for figuring an expected 'Full weight' from the 'light weight' of a ship, but I can't find it again for the life of me.

 

[blssdwlf]

The most detailed so info found so far is that the newest Nimitz, the George HW Bush is "102,000 long tons, fully loaded" and 47,000 tons of steel went into her construction.

 

[Warped9]

Even fully loaded I'm beginning to think 190,000 tons is too heavy for the TOS E.

 

[Santaman]

^^ Depends on it, she does seem to have a rather thick hull, Yamato's for example weren't all that big in external size compared to some carriers but at 72.000 tons very heavy which is of course a given with all the armour she carried.

 

[Vance]

Even fully loaded I'm beginning to think 190,000 tons is too heavy for the TOS E.

Only if you assume that 'trititanium' isn't some degree heavier/more-dense than 'titanium steel'. I think it's a lot easier to fudge up to , say, 190,000 LDWT to 220,000 HDWT than a million, at the very least.

 

[blssdwlf]

Some more numbers to breakdown from the GHW Bush carrier:

"The JP-5 distribution systems on carriers are huge, with about 125,000 linear feet of pipe. Main storage tanks, holding more than 2 million gallons of fuel, are in tanks inside the steel hull."

That's approx 6,800 tons of JP5 taking up approx 7500 cubic meters.

 

[Warped9]

A million is out of the question and we shouldn't even think about any further.

 

[blssdwlf]

More information from the Navy

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CVN77.htm

"Light Displacement: 77607 tons
Full Displacement: 98235 tons
Dead Weight: 20628 tons

Hull Material: Steel hull, steel superstructure."

Note, definitions are provided by Navy.

 

[Santaman]

In case of the 1701, rather thick skin, I assume a rather dense spaceframe, she has a lot of big machinery and you need to fit such items to a sturdy framework, then she's got heavy duty pylons, the nacelles are filled with lots of engine and reactor parts and a lot of coolant I guess, add the whole bulkheads and the like, I guess here and there a bit of extra armour around the main engineroom oh and add a normal load of stuff you use on a 5 year mission which IMO makes 190.000 tons sounds about right then.

 

[Warped9]

"Light Displacement:
Full Displacement:
Dead Weight:

Note, definitions are provided by Navy.

Excellent. Now we've got some parameters and better definitions.

From this I'd hazard that 190,000 (which I still think is high) represents the ship's full displacement or gross weight. If you subtract the personnel (37 tons) then the ship is 153,000. Start subtracting cargo and consumables and we're getting down to a more credible figure for just the ship. Full displacement may or may not have been what GR initially had in mind, but it makes more sense that way.

Curious, though. Naval standards are being applied to a spacecraft. How is weight of an aircraft or even a vehicle like the shuttle orbiter defined or expressed?

 

[Wingsley]

A million is out of the question and we shouldn't even think about any further.

I would say Scott's "million tons of vessel" in "Mudd's Women" should be taken in the context of a fully loaded vessel that's underway, complete with fuel and an extensive potable water supply. Those two items alone could account for the bulk of the ship's mass while underway.

We have to keep in mind that the Starship Enterprise is not a seagoing vessel. It's a starship, built to offer its crew and mission a significant capacity for self-sufficiency in deep space.

So let's assume, for sake of argument, that the Starship Enterprise, empty, has a mass of 100,000 tons. Let's assume she carries an ample supply of freshwater in special redundant high-tech compression tanks that, when fully loaded, weigh in at 250,000 tons. So we're already up to 350,000 tons. Now, let's assume that the ship, when fully provisioned, carries another 700,000 tons of fuel. That still leaves us with 50,000 tons of personnel and cargo for the mission before we reach Scotty's million-ton threshold.

What's wrong with taking Scotty's comment in that context?

 

[Warped9]

What's wrong with taking Scotty's comment in that context?

I don't find it at all credible and I think it's still too extreme.

 

[Ronald Held]

Why carry so much extra water when the recyclers are likely to be close to 100%
Has anyone computed the volume of the ship, assuming it was completely empty and including the thicknesses of the saucer, engineering hull, nacelles and struts/pylon?

 

[Wingsley]

Why would it be too extreme?

If one message come through loud and clear from TOS, it is that the Enterprise carries between 200 ("The Cage") and 430 standard compliment at any given time, with supercargo capacity for at least another 100-200 ("Journey to Babel") on top of that, and they have plenty of resources to do this. Indeed, Kirk made quite a boast in "Operation -- Annihilate!" and again in "The Immunity Syndrome" about the expansive facilities and resources aboard the Enterprise, including no less than 14 science labs (and presumably sickbay and other facilities on top of that).

Look at the way Number One went after blasting that one piece of rock in "The Cage", and then nuking the Gorn attackers on Cestus III. The Starfleet credo seems to be overkill. Why wouldn't they use that same overkill philosophy in designing, building and provisioning a starship? Given the apparent mortality rate of deep space expeditions, I would expect built-in overkill to be a standing order. If you're in deep space, you can never have enough air, freshwater or fuel for your spacecraft and crew and passengers.

 

[blssdwlf]

Here is an approximate volume for the TOS Enterprise (based on Sinclair's schematics):

Approx 216,000 cubic meters total volume.
Primary Hull = approx 92,656 cubic meters
Neck = approx 3299 cubic meters
Engineering Hull = approx 45667 cubic meters
Both warp pylons = 2777 cubic meters
Single warp nacelle = 35805 cubic meters

Don't take these as exact as I haven't finished the hangar bay doors which would add a little more volume to the engineering hull and of course I could be off here or there when building the model out

Edit: the surface area is higher than what it probably should be because I capped the ends of open parts (pylons, etc) for volume checking. This will raise the detected surface area a bit. Actual surface area would be around 60,000-68,000 sq meters, best guess

 

[blssdwlf]

Also some food for thought:

As another poster mentioned, the TOS Enterprise seems to have a thicker hull than the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. That would probably be because the Enterprise is designed to function in space.

Also, the aircraft carrier is designed to support combat operations for 90 days. Sure, with nuclear power it can go unrefueled for years but the carried jet fuel and food (18,000 meals a day x 90 days = 1,620,000 meals) limit its operation. The aircraft carrier also has desalination plants for fresh water.

The TOS Enterprise however must carry everything with her on her 5 year mission. That's food for 1290 meals a days x 1825 days = 2,354,250 meals. And also it needs to take its own water supply as well. And probably whatever raw materials it needs on missions.

 

[Gagarin]

There's recyclers and re-processesors and what have you, but they also need to have backup capability, and maybe the recyling takes longer than 12 or 24 hours. So I think there's got to be a buffer there, and enough water or 'ready to eat' provisions in case of power, systems, or some kind of huge failure. Maybe enough for 30 days? Just throwing a number out there. They also seem to have provisions for assisting colonies - which they wouldn't 'get' back through recycling.

 

[Warped9]

I don't think they would carry all provisions for the whole five years seeing as the ship does pull into distant starbases at least periodically. I also think that its replication and processing systems could take raw material encountered enroute to replenish some of its supplies.