D-7 Class Battlecruiser

[CorporalCaptain]

^ Agreed.

 

[scotpens]

In the good old novel The Final Reflection, as well as in the old RPG materials, the crew count of Klingon ships is increased due to them carrying Marines in tight cryosleep packages... And TNG "The Emissary" canonically tells us the battle cruisers are quite suited for cryosleep operations.

Or they could have used Instant Klingons — just add water.

Truthfully, we're not supposed to notice, just like we're not meant to notice 400 of the 440 Enterprise crew sealed into the lowest levels of the Enterprise in "Day of the Dove" - what were they doing there? Epic bowling tournament?

Two words: Disco party!

 

[James Wright]

Didn't one of Kang's officers mention a number when said officer said something about some predatory animal being among sheep?
I can't recall the exact line!

James

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Regarding the size, Jefferies' detailed drawing on this page casts doubt on the size relationships from The Making of Star Trek, which were used apparently to derive the now official 228m length and probably the older 710' number as well. While the details are difficult to read, I think I'm seeing an overall length of 624 feet and a scale of 1" = 22', which fits nicely with the reported length of about 28.5 inches for the shooting model (and half that for the AMT kit). Did Jefferies later scale up the design, like he scaled up the original Enterprise from about 540 feet, or were TMoST drawings supposed to be only approximate? I haven't compared the details to see if additional rows of windows were added or anything like that.

 

[James Wright]

KingDaniel wrote: We saw a D7/K'tinga noticably scaled up to match the USS Excelsior in "Flashback"

What makes you think Kang's ship is scaled up in "Flashback?

James

 

[F. King Daniel]

Just watch the episode. The D7 should be less than the length of the Excelsior's necelle, a tiny little thing in comparison, but they appear to be the same relative size as the D7 and the old Enterprise.

 

[Timo]

...Umm, where? I don't see any scene where the two would appear side by side, or particularly close to each other.

There's one scene where the D-7 is closer to the camera than Sulu's ship, and another where it's farther away. Neither establishes any specific size relationship between the two.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[James Wright]

Just watch the episode. The D7 should be less than the length of the Excelsior's necelle, a tiny little thing in comparison, but they appear to be the same relative size as the D7 and the old Enterprise.

The two ships never appear side by side as Timo said, it's the visual perspective that only makes Kang's ship appear to be larger then it actually is.

James

 

[zephramc]

Fewer luxuries...

like toilets.

 

[Emperor Norton]

Fewer luxuries...

like toilets.

Klingons are utilitarians. Airlocks work just as well. And if ensign J'kring's butt muscles are weak enough to let him get sucked out, then survival of the fittest.

Also explains why everything from Klingon space is so dirty.

 

[Knight Templar]

Isn't a U.S. aircraft carrier significantly smaller than either a Constitution class starship or a D-7 volume wise?

And they accomodate 6,000 or so people for sustained periods.

 

[Prologic9]

Isn't a U.S. aircraft carrier significantly smaller than either a Constitution class starship or a D-7 volume wise?

And they accomodate 6,000 or so people for sustained periods.

Indeed, the crew compliments have always been extraordinarily small. It gets much worse in TNG. Carrying around 1000 people in a Galaxy Class ship? It's like an ant driving around in an 18 wheeler.

 

[scotpens]

Isn't a U.S. aircraft carrier significantly smaller than either a Constitution class starship or a D-7 volume wise?

In a word . . . No. At least, I don't think so.

Unlike an aircraft carrier's hull, a Constitution-class starship is a dispersed structure, with no habitable space at all inside the warp nacelles. If you filled the TOS Enterprise's saucer and engineering hull with sand, you'd have only a fraction of the sand needed to fill the hull of a Gerald R. Ford-class carrier.

Has anyone ever actually calculated the interior volume of a Connie?

 

[Albertese]

Has anyone ever actually calculated the interior volume of a Connie?

Yes.

But forget who...



--Alex

 

[James Wright]

If you can a copy of the book "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, you'll find a diagram comparing TOS Enterprise and an aircraft carrier.

 

[Knight Templar]

Isn't a U.S. aircraft carrier significantly smaller than either a Constitution class starship or a D-7 volume wise?

In a word . . . No. At least, I don't think so.

Unlike an aircraft carrier's hull, a Constitution-class starship is a dispersed structure, with no habitable space at all inside the warp nacelles. If you filled the TOS Enterprise's saucer and engineering hull with sand, you'd have only a fraction of the sand needed to fill the hull of a Gerald R. Ford-class carrier.

Has anyone ever actually calculated the interior volume of a Connie?

Are you certain? Because discounting the island, a U.S. supercarrier has only something like 6 decks in the hull while there are about 20 or so in a Constitution class ship.

And the vast bulk of the interior of a carrier is dominated by the hangar deck and the engine spaces.

 

[scotpens]

If you can a copy of the book "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, you'll find a diagram comparing TOS Enterprise and an aircraft carrier.

In overall length and footprint, not volume.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Isn't a U.S. aircraft carrier significantly smaller than either a Constitution class starship or a D-7 volume wise?

In a word . . . No. At least, I don't think so.

Unlike an aircraft carrier's hull, a Constitution-class starship is a dispersed structure, with no habitable space at all inside the warp nacelles. If you filled the TOS Enterprise's saucer and engineering hull with sand, you'd have only a fraction of the sand needed to fill the hull of a Gerald R. Ford-class carrier.

Has anyone ever actually calculated the interior volume of a Connie?

Are you certain? Because discounting the island, a U.S. supercarrier has only something like 6 decks in the hull while there are about 20 or so in a Constitution class ship.

And the vast bulk of the interior of a carrier is dominated by the hangar deck and the engine spaces.

blssdwlf did the computation a while ago: A Nimitz class carrier has a volume of about 367,000 cubic meters. A Constitution class starship has a volume of about 230,000 cubic meters.

Primarily this is because both the saucer and engineering hull are significantly shorter than the carrier's hull, and of the saucer's seven decks only one of them spans the entire length and width of the module.

Really, it's like looking at the Space Needle and a large officer building and asking "That office building is only ten stories high... isn't the space needle bigger?"

 

[scotpens]

blssdwlf did the computation a while ago: A Nimitz class carrier has a volume of about 367,000 cubic meters. A Constitution class starship has a volume of about 230,000 cubic meters.

Primarily this is because both the saucer and engineering hull are significantly shorter than the carrier's hull, and of the saucer's seven decks only one of them spans the entire length and width of the module.

But, for both the carrier and the starship, how much of that volume is actual living and working space for the crew?

 

[Knight Templar]

Then, the Constitution at the same personnel density of the Nimitz class should be able to maintain about 3500 crewman.

Cut that in half for greater crew comfort and you still get a crew of 1,750.

Cut that in half for the D-7 and you get it comfortably supporting a crew of 875.

In short, the Constitutions and the D-7s would have no problems at all with crews of 400-450.