Mass of the Constitution class Enterprise?
- Thread starter James Wright
- Start date
- Status
Honestly, I think we should seriously start thinking of the Enterprise as being more of an aircraft or spacecraft with ship characteristics in terms of mass than a ship with some aircraft or spacecraft characteristics.
Ships are quite heavy and massive for their size, aircraft and spacecraft are fairly light. I don't know any reason why the Enterprise would be any different. Especially considering technical advances will allow a design of the same strength to be sturdier and lighter than an older design -- up to a point.
CuttingEdge100
Ships are quite heavy and massive for their size, aircraft and spacecraft are fairly light. I don't know any reason why the Enterprise would be any different. Especially considering technical advances will allow a design of the same strength to be sturdier and lighter than an older design -- up to a point.
CuttingEdge100
Given that the mass is stated in the show as "almost a million gross tons", it is rather silly to then settle on 190,000 tonnes unless you're hanging out in Trek Lit. This would be like deciding Voyager's mass was 1.5 million tonnes (as per the writer's guide) despite clear contrary statements in the show. It just doesn't happen for the 90's show, so why would one do it for the 60's show?
Once you start ignoring significant facts from the show at your whimsy, you're not discussing Trek anymore. That's what canon is . . . a central meeting-ground for discussion.
And per the canon, the ship weighs something like 3-5 times more than 190,000 tonnes.
See also: Canon Masses and the following section on the 190,000 tonne fallacy.
Once you start ignoring significant facts from the show at your whimsy, you're not discussing Trek anymore. That's what canon is . . . a central meeting-ground for discussion.
And per the canon, the ship weighs something like 3-5 times more than 190,000 tonnes.
See also: Canon Masses and the following section on the 190,000 tonne fallacy.
From another thread in which this topic appeared:
1. Why would one expect Voyager to be more dense than Enterprise-1701?
2. Voyager is not the only one we know for sure to be more dense than water. Enterprise-1701 is, too, as is the Klingon Bird-of-Prey which sank in San Francisco Bay (average depth 14 feet, so it didn't sink far, but still). We also have it implied that Jem'Hadar battlebugs sink, though in fairness we cannot be 100% certain of its seaworthiness (e.g. hull holes) when it sank.
3. Why would Enterprise-1701 be the outlier? How can you even have an outlier from two stated points? (If anything Scotty's "Mudd's Women" comment sets the standard.)
4. The "gross tons" thing is not really odd. I would like it better if he'd said "metric tonnes", sure, but we know what a "gross ton" (not the volume kind) is. It's not odd . . . it's just the nature of the language and naval lingo.
5. Why does non-canon information work for stuff like this? I thought "that screaming "non-canon!" by itself shouldn't carry extra weight, unless a canonical source contradicts a non-canonical one".
Guess what? A canonical source contradicts non-canonical ones on this topic. 190,000 is off the table, then, as far as I'm concerned.
1. Why would one expect Voyager to be more dense than Enterprise-1701?
2. Voyager is not the only one we know for sure to be more dense than water. Enterprise-1701 is, too, as is the Klingon Bird-of-Prey which sank in San Francisco Bay (average depth 14 feet, so it didn't sink far, but still). We also have it implied that Jem'Hadar battlebugs sink, though in fairness we cannot be 100% certain of its seaworthiness (e.g. hull holes) when it sank.
3. Why would Enterprise-1701 be the outlier? How can you even have an outlier from two stated points? (If anything Scotty's "Mudd's Women" comment sets the standard.)
4. The "gross tons" thing is not really odd. I would like it better if he'd said "metric tonnes", sure, but we know what a "gross ton" (not the volume kind) is. It's not odd . . . it's just the nature of the language and naval lingo.
5. Why does non-canon information work for stuff like this? I thought "that screaming "non-canon!" by itself shouldn't carry extra weight, unless a canonical source contradicts a non-canonical one".
Guess what? A canonical source contradicts non-canonical ones on this topic. 190,000 is off the table, then, as far as I'm concerned.
The Tech Manuals are putting out there this idea of the warp coils being the most massive components of the ship, densifying over time to do their jobs better, and of subspace fields being used to reduce the relative mass of the ship for more effective impulse propulsion. I think it is sensible that Voyager is probably made of denser materials and is more robust than a ship from over a hundred years before, and that her warp coils are way more dense (she's way faster).
Given a choice between her being slightly more dense and like less than a third as dense, the former makes a lot more sense than the latter to me.
I think I said some of this already, earlier in the thread; forgive me if I'm repeating myself.
1701 is what's being debated, I do think the Jem'Hadar ship had holes in it, and the BOP...I haven't seen the movie in a while, but didn't the bay doors get opened to let the whales out? Glub glub. It is easily believable that a BOP would sink, however, considering Klingon design principles.
I didn't state only two points; I brought in Enterprise-D as well. Its designers had a mass in mind and thus a density can be calculated; you may enjoy pointing out that this is not canon, but I feel it is relevant to the discussion, particularly when that density is quite similar to that of 1701 at 190,000 metric tons. The runabout's too different in design to be a useful comparison.
I think the confusion with the volume issue and its never being used again in Trek and its Imperial nature qualify it as at least a little odd, though not an obvious toss-out like when someone says asymptomatic instead of asymptotic. I certainly don't think the use of the term points to a carefully researched line that was supposed to carry a technical validity about the design of the Enterprise.
First, I don't remember screaming.
Second, the thread is obviously not limiting itself to the single line from the single episode, or it wouldn't justify its own existence. Most Trek Tech threads are not and probably should not be instantly answered with a simple reference to a line from an episode.
So we've got a line, but it is a questionable line in light of later Trek tech stuff we might want to consider, in the same way that certain lines about the speed of the 1701 from TOS would invalidate the entire series premise of Star Trek: Voyager.
Roddenberry evidently signed off on the 190,000 ton figure when it appeared in the Franz Joseph works years after the episodes were produced, so those so inclined could take it as his final word on that particular tonnage issue. Since it seems to line up a little better with the tonnage figures we've got for later ships, it's worth considering.
I could go into a bunch of stuff about when exactly that 190,000 ton figure first appeared, how it's on one of the drafts of the spoken intro to the series, it's in the pitch document, how there's some evidence to suggest Matt Jefferies had a hand in it, and so forth, but that's been done a lot on these boards and I don't feel like typing it out again merely to have it quoted and described as non-canon. We all know that Enterprise-A has 78 decks, right? It was on screen.
[The other thread that you refer to is not a thread of strict canonical references by its very design. As I understand it, it is part of a project in which the gentleman is trying to design speculative schematics in an LCARS graphic style, frequently for ships about which there is almost no data in the canon. As he prepares many such schematics with speculative mass figures that appear in a gallery side-by-side, it draws from other known figures that are more similar to one another than to the million-ton idea and its implications, and creates a context in which the 190,000 ton figure or something like it may fit better. My comments were designed to apply to that thread directly; in this one I'd already said my piece back on page 1.]
I just skimmed mine and don't see where there's mention of them getting denser over time. Can you reference that statement?
Would your concept not require that Voyager exert more energy when landed than when in space? And if it takes more energy to be landed, should Voyager not be the least dense ship of those being built at that time?
Except that's the exact opposite of what one should expect. As technology advances you find new materials that are as strong as the old but weigh less, or stronger but weigh more, or (and this is the universal ideal) are both stronger and lighter.
Why would starships be any different?
Given that ships from the 2150's through the 2370's are built out of the same basic materials (duranium and tritanium), it doesn't seem that denser materials are involved. You could perhaps argue extra hull thickness, but there's no evidence for such a thing that I'm aware of.
There is evidence that Voyager is lighter, however. Here we see indications that duranium may be less dense than tritanium. And interestingly, Voyager's hull is identified as duranium, like most shuttlecraft, whereas other Starfleet ships are usually said to have a tritanium hull.
See also:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Duranium
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Tritanium
That was after they started sinking. Per Kirk immediately after splash-landing, "Now all we have to do is get the whales out before we sink. Abandon ship!"
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 wins.
So you think you'll change the game. Here's what you're 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've done is 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.
But the reality is that the non-canon 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 two non-canon datapoints (alt-1701 and non-canon 1701-D).
3. Canon 1701 defeats alt-1701 and non-canon 1701-D. Canon 1701 and 74656 are used together to understand the Trek universe.
At no point is canon threatened or questioned by non-canon tomfoolery.
So just because they used an Imperial measurement, that, to you, implies a throwaway line not meant to be taken seriously?
Okaaay.
Anyway, your personal disbelief is not a valid, logical argument, even if there were a logical reason for your disbelief.
Not you. I was quoting the FAQ.
In this case, it should, excepting if one then goes on to ask about the pre-refit or post-refit Constitution, the refit versus the new-build Enterprise-A, et cetera. But that's a whole 'nother thread.
Except you're presuming that Roddenberry carefully researched every fact, figure, and whatever of the FJ works. That's a very unusual claim.
(We do know, though, that he polished the "almost a million" script himself, and shares story credit if I remember correctly.)
Furthermore, I thought fandom got pissed at Roddenberry precisely because he went back later and peed on the FJ works (e.g. no 3-nacelled ships, et cetera).
How do you get it both ways?
That's a cheap shot, a desperate argument meant to mislead those ready to be misled.
We know errors creep in, especially in the time-crunched post-production VFX departments. Hell, even in the features you get big text on big screens with misspelled words ("hyrdrogen", IIRC).
And yes, a television show is the work of all concerned, from writers to artists of all sorts. Case in point . . . a season of DS9 ends with the Defiant escaping DS9 upon its capture and joining up with the fleet. It was to be a somber moment. The writers wrote it that way.
But somewhere down the chain someone in the art department though the fleet was supposed to be headed back toward the station, so when the writers watched the show they were shocked to see the Defiant head back toward the station along with the fleet giving every appearance that some Cardie butt was about to be kicked. Not somber at all anymore.
Since it was a season-ender, they could go in and write about this butt-kicking fleet being repulsed for the next season. Had it not been a season-opener next episode they'd have had to let the error go.
We know that before and after ST5, there was no support for (and evidence against) 78 decks. To try to compare this to a single datapoint from a script polished by The Great Bird himself with no contrary data of remotely similar rank is just weasel-ish.
How much would a modern ship with the length, width and height of the Enterprise's warp nacelle mass in at?
CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100
The density of most any seaworthy vessel is less than that of water (about 1000 kg/m^3), so if we simply assume water then:
1701: 27,842 tonnes
1701-A: 26,662 tonnes
1701-B: 58,569* tonnes
1701-D: 280,204 tonnes (or something like 50k tonnes more than 1701-A)
(* Stock Excelsior nacelle)
1701: 27,842 tonnes
1701-A: 26,662 tonnes
1701-B: 58,569* tonnes
1701-D: 280,204 tonnes (or something like 50k tonnes more than 1701-A)
(* Stock Excelsior nacelle)
And, interestingly, the mass given for the NCC-1701's nacelles (from FJ, and signed off on by GR) was 35,000MT per nacelle, which means it's overall denser than water for it's volume - enough that you do have to assume some 'heavy equipment' in there along with all the empty space actually shown.
This arument makes the 190,000MT sound all the more reasonable, once you take out 70,000MT for the nacelles.
This arument makes the 190,000MT sound all the more reasonable, once you take out 70,000MT for the nacelles.
Egad . . . that would only leave 120,000 tonnes of mass for the remaining 155,500 cubic meters worth of Constitution class, most of which is volumetrically inefficient (e.g. saucer sections and connecting dorsals have a lot of outer hull for very little interior). That's a density of 771 kg/m^3, or about 75% of the density of water. Not only would she float on water, but she might tap-dance.
Further, by those figures, a 700,000 tonne Voyager would end up with nacelles whose mass was greater than that for the entire Constitution class.
More on that math next post.
In the meantime, though . . . what is it with you guys saying that Roddenberry signed off on Franz Joseph's mass figures? You don't seriously think that Roddenberry demanded to be carried through the calculations (or provided his own) before allowing his name to appear, do you? That's more than a little silly. He affixed his name to an impressive volume, but the idea that he fact-checked every screw position in the drawings and every ship name and every mass figure is just astonishingly wacky to me.
I realize, to borrow from Decker, that we all make our gods in our own image, but I'm pretty sure Roddenberry wasn't as geeky as the folks in here. No offense, just sayin'.
Furthermore, I believe the problem some people have with Roddenberry is that he later ignored Franz Joseph, contradicting him outright with various ideas for TNG. Hardly a good sign . . . or sign-off.
Further, by those figures, a 700,000 tonne Voyager would end up with nacelles whose mass was greater than that for the entire Constitution class.
More on that math next post.
In the meantime, though . . . what is it with you guys saying that Roddenberry signed off on Franz Joseph's mass figures? You don't seriously think that Roddenberry demanded to be carried through the calculations (or provided his own) before allowing his name to appear, do you? That's more than a little silly. He affixed his name to an impressive volume, but the idea that he fact-checked every screw position in the drawings and every ship name and every mass figure is just astonishingly wacky to me.
I realize, to borrow from Decker, that we all make our gods in our own image, but I'm pretty sure Roddenberry wasn't as geeky as the folks in here. No offense, just sayin'.
Furthermore, I believe the problem some people have with Roddenberry is that he later ignored Franz Joseph, contradicting him outright with various ideas for TNG. Hardly a good sign . . . or sign-off.
Actually, not only did GR sign off on FJ's calculations (he used modern - at the time - naval vessels for equivalents) but he would go on to use them himself when it came time to write the TMP novelization. FJ was an engineer, and knew his stuff. GR was not, admittedly. But the only reason that GR stopped using FJ's material was that Roddenberry was asserting his dominance on the franchise again. It would have been one thing if GR had found a new engineer or something to make 'corrections', but he was just being pissy. (And FJ was far from the only victim, he was just the most high-profile.)
But, yes, from what we've seen of the saucer, in partiulcar, of the ship, I would actually EXPECT it to float in water. It's mostly air, after all, and we've seen most the material components of that section of the ship man-handled.
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.
But, yes, from what we've seen of the saucer, in partiulcar, of the ship, I would actually EXPECT it to float in water. It's mostly air, after all, and we've seen most the material components of that section of the ship man-handled.
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.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
The figures I quoted in the other thread only appear in JvP's German-language translation of the novel, not GR's original English-language version. I naturally regard them as the gospel truth concerning the NCC-1701 Refit (pre-fueling, anyway), but that's just me. YMMV.
TGT
And that is why you guys don't believe the script Gene polished from the Rand Corp-overviewed first season?
Just to confirm here, you're saying Gene cared about mass, rewrote a script including a reference to it contrary to the 190,000 tonne figure, and whenever he was in control of Trek again he signed off on Sternbach/Okuda values which also contradict the 190,000 tonne figure. The rationale for the latter was used twice for Voyager as overseen by Gene's hand-picked successor.
Therefore, you conclude that 190,000 is right.
Is that about it?
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.
Vance...
I was thinking about the Enterprise nacelles. Since they seem to be shaped close enough to a submarine hull, I've thought about using the mass estimates of such vessels as a reference against the nacelles.
First of all, each of the TOS Enterprise nacelles are around 141 meters from what I remember.
Using the hull-shape of the Los-Angeles hull (which is a skinny-hull and closest to the Enterprise's nacelle shape and 110 meters) scaled up to 141 meters when surfaceed would be 7,796 to 8,879.155 tons (regular tons).
Using the hull-shape of the Ohio-Class ballistic-missile submarine which is bigger and heavier, scaled down to 141 meters (from 170m) would be 13,768 tons surfaced and 15,510 tons submerged.
It would be logical to assume that an engine nacelle would as a result mass in at something between 7,796 to 15,510 tons.
Keep in mind engines are supposed to have very high power to weight ratios so I don't see any good reason why they should be any heavier than a submarine if not lighter when you take into account that they (nacelles) would be made out of different substances.
If you look at even the J-79 as an example, which were created in the mid 1950's weighed at most 3,500 lbs (some of the first engines without afterburners weighed like 2,900).
Let's look at the F-4 Phantom which weighed around 42,000 pounds at maximum gross weight (fully fueled, no weapons). Now with the engines weighing 7,000 pounds tops, that would mean the plane would only weigh about 1/6th of the plane's weight.
I was thinking about the Enterprise nacelles. Since they seem to be shaped close enough to a submarine hull, I've thought about using the mass estimates of such vessels as a reference against the nacelles.
First of all, each of the TOS Enterprise nacelles are around 141 meters from what I remember.
Using the hull-shape of the Los-Angeles hull (which is a skinny-hull and closest to the Enterprise's nacelle shape and 110 meters) scaled up to 141 meters when surfaceed would be 7,796 to 8,879.155 tons (regular tons).
Using the hull-shape of the Ohio-Class ballistic-missile submarine which is bigger and heavier, scaled down to 141 meters (from 170m) would be 13,768 tons surfaced and 15,510 tons submerged.
It would be logical to assume that an engine nacelle would as a result mass in at something between 7,796 to 15,510 tons.
Keep in mind engines are supposed to have very high power to weight ratios so I don't see any good reason why they should be any heavier than a submarine if not lighter when you take into account that they (nacelles) would be made out of different substances.
If you look at even the J-79 as an example, which were created in the mid 1950's weighed at most 3,500 lbs (some of the first engines without afterburners weighed like 2,900).
Let's look at the F-4 Phantom which weighed around 42,000 pounds at maximum gross weight (fully fueled, no weapons). Now with the engines weighing 7,000 pounds tops, that would mean the plane would only weigh about 1/6th of the plane's weight.
It's definately true that even the 35,000MT number would result in a pretty heavy engine, but I'm a bit okay with that if we assume that nearly the whole thing is a reactor, with only access ways as 'empty'. It's one of the relatively few parts on the Enterprise we have to 'fudge for tech' anyway, so assuming that the assembly of the warp engines includes a generous mass of frackinheavionium somewhere, 35KMT is definately doable.
It's really only problematic when you look at TNG (and up) numbers, which are rediculously heavy.
It's really only problematic when you look at TNG (and up) numbers, which are rediculously heavy.
Vance,
Actually the whole engine isn't a reactor. The reactor is in the engineering-hull, there are three of them (It was mentioned in the TV-series during one episode). The energy/plasma is then shuffled to the engines.
Granted the engines turn that energy into space-warping fields, but still, I don't see any reason why they should be heavy. Shuttlecraft have warp-engines and they seem to be pretty lightweight overall...
CuttingEdge100
Actually the whole engine isn't a reactor. The reactor is in the engineering-hull, there are three of them (It was mentioned in the TV-series during one episode). The energy/plasma is then shuffled to the engines.
Granted the engines turn that energy into space-warping fields, but still, I don't see any reason why they should be heavy. Shuttlecraft have warp-engines and they seem to be pretty lightweight overall...
CuttingEdge100
Reactor in that a reaction (that one that makes the warp field) takes place, not neccessarily that it provides energy, but TOS has lots of conflicting references about that one.
The shuttlecraft is about 9MT in mass, which is pretty damn heavy for something that size and demonstrably 80 percent hollow. I'll leave it to others to figure out how much the warp nacelles weigh of that 9MT.
The shuttlecraft is about 9MT in mass, which is pretty damn heavy for something that size and demonstrably 80 percent hollow. I'll leave it to others to figure out how much the warp nacelles weigh of that 9MT.
- Status
