More specifically, the separated saucer section. 
Can the Enterprise D float?
- Thread starter Data Holmes
- Start date
Not anymore it can't. 
"Could" it have? Doubtful. The amount of dense material making it up almost certainly results in an overall density somewhat more than water has, regardless of how much air there is in there.
On the other hand, it wouldn't quite sink like a ROCK, either. It's probably quite CLOSE to neutrally buoyant in water. So, given the thing having some power, and having an operational antigrav system, yeah, it would probably be able to float. Take away that power, and it would start sinking... though not "like a rock" by any means.
Also, it seems that the aft end, with the impulse engines and the lower overall internal volume (due to the cut-out) would sink first, so it would do a "titanic" nose-up thing first... the only question is, without the S.I.F. working, would it SPLIT like the titanic or remain in one piece?
"Could" it have? Doubtful. The amount of dense material making it up almost certainly results in an overall density somewhat more than water has, regardless of how much air there is in there.
On the other hand, it wouldn't quite sink like a ROCK, either. It's probably quite CLOSE to neutrally buoyant in water. So, given the thing having some power, and having an operational antigrav system, yeah, it would probably be able to float. Take away that power, and it would start sinking... though not "like a rock" by any means.
Also, it seems that the aft end, with the impulse engines and the lower overall internal volume (due to the cut-out) would sink first, so it would do a "titanic" nose-up thing first... the only question is, without the S.I.F. working, would it SPLIT like the titanic or remain in one piece?
The 'whole' Enterprise-d weighs five MILLION tons. For its volume, it would indeed sink and be sunk, as would most starships.
mark
mark
It doesn't matter how many tons it weights... it matters if it weighs more than the same volume in displaced water would weigh.
Look into the overall volume of the 1701D's primary hull, figure out the weight of that much water. I'd hazard a rough guess that it'll come out pretty close to the same, though (as I said) probably a bit less than what the saucer itself would.
Also remember that the heaviest single component of the 1701D is going to be the warp nacelle... and that there are two of those. Each of those certainly outweighs either of the main hull sections. (After all, the bulk of it is made up of SOLID WARP COILS rather than the hollow structure of the rest of the ship).
The WEIGHT OF THE SHIP means nothing... only the MASS DENSITY of it, relative to water. And he's ONLY asking about the saucer, remember... not the whole ship.
You may weight 200 lbs or so... but I'll bet that you weigh less than your volume worth of water, so you almost certainly float. Right?
If it's just the saucer section, it looks like it might float.
One of the primary purposes of the saucer is survival, and we've already seen it can handle rough surface landings without significant structural damage. Especially if the saucer is still under power, it can probably be made to float via some sort of gravity/mass manipulation. Or airbags.
One of the primary purposes of the saucer is survival, and we've already seen it can handle rough surface landings without significant structural damage. Especially if the saucer is still under power, it can probably be made to float via some sort of gravity/mass manipulation. Or airbags.
Maybe, if IDF reduces the inertial mass.
On a side note. In the trek book "rouge saucer" a saucer crashes in the sea on a pre-warp planet. They sink it themselves. But in the book it did float. Course thats no cannon..
In understand all about mass volume. All I'm saying is that I don't believe that the Enterprise-D's overall displacement exceeds five million metric tons. As one cubic meter of water is roughly equivalent to one metric ton of water, it follows that the overall volume of the E-D would have to be more than five million cubic meters. We've done volumetric analyses over the years. Anyone?
Mark
Mark
All right. what is the mass of the saucer only, and its volume?
Probert, Probert, Probert...
It would float like a cork unless it was made of extremely dense materials. Hell, it would float if it was made of lead. The saucer is mostly empty space inside. I would expect advanced materials to weigh less than today's materials so no way that puppy sinks as long as it's water-tight.
Ray, pretend for a moment that I don't know anything about metallurgy, engineering, or physics, and just tell me what the hell is going on. :thumbsup:
According to the last linked page, the Enterprise-D's volume is over 5.8 million cubic meters. If the TNG Tech Manual is correct, then the Enterprise weighs around five million metric tons. Since one cubic meter of water weighs around one metric ton, the volume of water the Enterprise would displace would weight more than the Enterprise itself. Therefore, the ship would float, albeit at an odd angle as the nacelles' weight would unbalance the ship. Also, the saucer alone would float, and probably upright.
Interestingly enough, that same page notes the volume of an Intrepid class ship at 625,000 cubic meters. We know Voyager weighs in at around 700,000 metric tons. By this same logic, if Voyager landed on an ocean and turned off the engines, she would promptly sink to the bottom. Sucks to be tiny.
Mark
Interestingly enough, that same page notes the volume of an Intrepid class ship at 625,000 cubic meters. We know Voyager weighs in at around 700,000 metric tons. By this same logic, if Voyager landed on an ocean and turned off the engines, she would promptly sink to the bottom. Sucks to be tiny.
Mark
Ok, (and my comment, a quote from Ghost Busters, was in jest) As to the upright comment, was to say that the bow would point up, or that it would float like a frisbie on top of the water?
Here's the basic "short form" about buoyancy... aka "will something float or not?"
Everything which is made of matter has mass, and thus in gravity has weight. That includes water, air, steel, plastic, body tissues... everything.
Gravity exerts a force on everything, The force is based upon the mass of the object and the force of gravity at the location being considered (which, by the way, actually does change from spot to spot across the surface of the planet!)
There is another force, however, that acts on everything which is suspended in any fluid medium (fluid meaning gas, liquid, or for that matter plasma... any matter which has no fixed form or shape). That force is referred to as buoyancy.
It's actually very simple to figure out the force of buoyancy acting on any object. It works like this:
1) Find out the VOLUME of the object you're considering. If it's sealed, you can look at the total enclosed volume, but if it's open, you have to consider void spaces inside. In general, what you're looking at is the DISPLACEMENT... the amount of water which is "pushed out of the way" when the object is in the fluid medium.
2) Look at the mass density of that volume of that fluid... the amount of fluid which is displaced by the object you're considering. Use that to calculate the force of gravity (aka the "weight") of that amount of the fluid.
Subtract the weight of the displaced fluid from the weight of the object doing the displacement and you have the buoyancy force acting on the object. Pretty simple.
An object will float upwards if the buoyancy of the ENTIRE object is positive, and it will sink if the buoyancy is negative. If the forces balance, it's "neutrally buoyant" and will float. Surface vessels are designed to be neutrally buoyant with a portion of themselves (not ALL) submerged.
This applies to ships, it applies to balloons in the atmosphere... it applies to everything. It even applies to conventional aircraft, though the buoyancy force is so small relative to the forces of lift and gravity that it's typically treated as inconsequential.
For naval vessels, they are typically referred to by their displacement. I'll let some of our more navally-experienced guys follow up with that definition... but the "Cliff's Notes" version is that the number being referred to is the weight of the vessel, which is also the weight of the water which is being pushed aside... the two are equal, which is why the ship floats on the surface with the waterline at a predetermined point along the hull.
I think it should float. It's probably less dense than water. The saucer certainly will. If the nacelles are made of some super-dense material, they might drag it down.
Seawater is much more dense than pure water, so if it landed in the ocean it would have a better chance.
Seawater is much more dense than pure water, so if it landed in the ocean it would have a better chance.
Actually, if you stop and think about it not from a "what if it were real" but rather a "what if I were designing it myself" perspective... it seems likely that the primary hull WOULD float in water (fresh or salt).
Why? Because the saucer is really defined as the "escape craft" for the whole ship, right? If I were designing it for that purpose, I'd want it to be able to land safely on any planetary body (short of the hot side of Mercury, obviously!)
Now, for a pelagic planet (aka, with an all water, or nearly all water, surface), you'd really NEED it to be able to float, just to ensure that the crew would be likely to survive until rescued.
SO... unless Starfleet Engineering is incompetent, it seems obvious that it would have been designed to be able to float. It might be MOSTLY submerged, though... but at the very least the bridge would stay nice and dry!
And as you state, if it were in a saltwater body, it would float a bit better...
(That's the only frustrating part of SCUBA diving. I know exactly how much ballast I need to wear when diving in the ocean, but diving in fresh water... which has all variety of levels of impurities... I never know how much weight I need to carry 'til I'm in the water!)
Similar threads
