Mass of the Constitution class Enterprise?
- Thread starter James Wright
- Start date
- Status
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Masao, if I may once again mount a favorite hobby horse, why can't Scotty's "almost million gross tons of starship" include the NCC-1701's remaining impulse engine fuel/reaction mass, possibly stored in some degenerate form so as to minimize volume requirements? After all, GR stated that the impulse engines operate as rockets which are by definition subject to Newton's Third Law.
TGT
Masao, if I may once again mount a favorite hobby horse, why can't Scotty's "almost million gross tons of starship" include the NCC-1701's remaining impulse engine fuel/reaction mass, possibly stored in some degenerate form so as to minimize volume requirements? After all, GR stated that the impulse engines operate as rockets which are by definition subject to Newton's Third Law.
TGT
TGT: I've stayed out of this discussion and intend to stay out. So, I don't have any opinion about your question. Sorry.
I just want to know whether I hate Trek.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
I don't get the reason for any argument at all. There is a mass for a rocket that is fully loaded, and one for a rocket totally dry. We have gotten so used to the idea of Enterprise as a self-sustaining, Bussard ramjet-equipped spacecraft that we forget the origin of that idea in Trek was not Roddenberry, not Jefferies, not even Franz Joseph, but Geoff Mandel. Mandel misread Franz Joseph's blueprints specifying a '"space energy/matter sink (acquisition)" as referring to gas being drawn into the nacelle for fuel, when he was referring to the fabric of space being drawn into the nacelle as part of warping. Rick Sternbach built upon Mandel's otherwise excellent work, and we got Bussard collectors on the nacelles. But there is no indication that was the original intention of either Jefferies or Roddenberry. In fact, quite the contrary -- Jefferies describes the secondary hull as being for "stores and equip. etc."
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/7/75/Jefferies_Enterprise_sketch.jpg
If you look at specifications for a booster contemporary with the making of Star Trek -- e.g. the Saturn V -- you see a "dry mass" and a "propellant mass" listed.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/saturn.htm
It is entirely reasonable and consistent for people making a TV show that takes place in a starship that they tell us is also equipped with "atomic" rockets to allow for a propellant mass when the ship is operating. The Saturn V they would have been familiar with had fifteen times as much propellant mass as dry mass. Doesn't the measly four times difference between a dry 190,000 MT and 800,000 MT propellant mass on Enterprise seem like a considerable improvement? Given the kinds of hyperdense matter thet TGT is referring to above, this fuel could fit in an amazingly small tank, and not depend on technology any more advanced than we can today confidently contemplate eventually creating.
So, the answer -- as painful as it may seem for anyone that is yearning for a fight -- is that both sides are right. The ship was 190,000 MT. AND 1,000,000 MT.
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/7/75/Jefferies_Enterprise_sketch.jpg
If you look at specifications for a booster contemporary with the making of Star Trek -- e.g. the Saturn V -- you see a "dry mass" and a "propellant mass" listed.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/saturn.htm
It is entirely reasonable and consistent for people making a TV show that takes place in a starship that they tell us is also equipped with "atomic" rockets to allow for a propellant mass when the ship is operating. The Saturn V they would have been familiar with had fifteen times as much propellant mass as dry mass. Doesn't the measly four times difference between a dry 190,000 MT and 800,000 MT propellant mass on Enterprise seem like a considerable improvement? Given the kinds of hyperdense matter thet TGT is referring to above, this fuel could fit in an amazingly small tank, and not depend on technology any more advanced than we can today confidently contemplate eventually creating.
So, the answer -- as painful as it may seem for anyone that is yearning for a fight -- is that both sides are right. The ship was 190,000 MT. AND 1,000,000 MT.
Last edited:
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
^ Who is to say that the Enterprise even had a full tank of gas during the events depicted in Mudd's Women? 
TGT
TGT
From where did you (just now) get this information? I have seen no mention of a quote of Gene previously in which he states that the million ton figure is wrong.
1. Roddenberry was not the sole arbiter of canonicity. Quoting, "Paramount Studios (formerly Desilu) is my partner in the Star Trek venture and I am not permitted to make unilateral decisions any more than they are."
2. Roddenberry was not involved with any Star Trek production during the time of Franz Joseph, '73-'75. His opinion held sway with the minds of fans, yes, but during that time he had no official rank with Star Trek.
3. Please provide evidence of your claim that Roddenberry ever approved of the Franz Joseph materials as canon Star Trek fact (not that he could, but that he would).
(For what it's worth, I do not see any Roddenberry-penned text anywhere in my first edition of the Star Fleet Technical Manual. However, I do see his hand in the introduction to Sternbach and Okuda's TNG Technical Manual.)
4. 190,000 tons (later changed to tonnes) appears in the writer's guide, the "Making of" book, and then in FJ's material. The writer's guide is not canon, and as with all writer's guides was ignored as desired (e.g. "Mudd's Women"). The behind-the-scenes book was merely quoting the writer's guide. And FJ got his info from one or the other.
Meanwhile, we have . . . from the actual show . . . the episode "Mudd's Women": "Story by Gene Roddenberry; teleplay by Stephen Kandel, John D.F. Black, Gene Roddenberry". Roddenberry also attempted to charge Desilu for a "polish" of the story, meaning he went through and gave it a clean-up edit after he, Kandel, and Black had completed the teleplay.
What the devil could Lincoln Enterprises possibly have to do with anything? And what guides were they putting out with declarations of canonicity? And why would anyone actually care, since Paramount could've laughed at their audacious attempt to declare Trek 'truth'?
There's a certain irony in that you're disagreeing with Scotty on the engineering of the Enterprise.
Considering that your entire assault has been based on trying to ignore or sidestep canon, I find the sentence above entirely peculiar.
Praytell, do inform we mere hoi polloi on the true meaning and usage of canon. Explain your Star Trek epistemology in which the show is to be ignored at the drop of any hat in favor of whatever you find from elsewhere.
Speaking of entirely peculiar, what the hell are you even talking about here? I realize I'm something of a legend in some circles, with feats of wickedry ascribed to me that are daunting (if even from a time management perspective), but I just don't recall going back in time to 1989 and harassing Star Trek fans.
What happened? Was I mad about Pulaski? Did the extraordinary suck of "The Icarus Factor"[TNG2] make me snap? Please, do tell me more about my hidden, secret history.
Writer's guide and the script of the episode. Scotty is deliberately being frustrated, emotional, and hyperbolic. He is not meant to be taken literally at that moment.
Look, guy, Roddenberry's JOB on the original series was producer and story editor. Guess what, that means he defined what canon was for the original series. I don't agree with all, or even many, of his decisions, but I respect that that was what he was attempting to do, for better or worse. If you cannot understand that canon is not something for the fans, at all, ever, period, and is a function of the writers of each part of the franchise, then I can't help you.
Bullshit. You are so incredibly wrong in this that it's utterly laughable. Roddenberry was in talks with Paramount and NBC about a new show as early as 73, since it was already clear that Star Trek had become a syndication hit. He also coordinated the licensing through Lincoln Enterprises for various Star Trek properties.
His signature on every single page of the Blueprints, and then on the Technical Manual itself. Then the use of the details in the only movie that Roddenberry himself helmed. Jeeze, guy, are you that ignorant of Trek's history?
The writer's guide is the very definition of canon. Again, canon is not something the fans use, it's something the writers use. You do not understand what 'canon' actually is, the history of Star Trek, the history of the Writer's Guide (most of it was put together AFTER the first batch of episodes), etc.
I think we're honestly done here. You definately have nothing more to contribute than "nuh-uh, neener neener". It's clear that you have no clue about which you speak, and you seen 'canon' as nothing more than your personal vendetta against all other fans, including people who work on the shows, comics, etc..
You want to claim that anyone who disagrees with you hates Trek. I'll give you a small hint, it's not Trek that's getting anyone's ire here. And with that, we're done.
That's silly.
But, if you walk in and see some guy who has expended the effort of numerous posts talking about how "stupid" Star Trek technical data from all the various shows was, saying "fuck the canon", attacking the show and claiming that Roddenberry was being "pissy" and on all sorts of drugs everytime he disagreed with the guy's pet theory (except for a brief period in '73-'75 when GR was apparently clean and lucid) . . .
. . . well, what conclusion would you draw? It would seem pretty clear to me he doesn't like Trek, and he's sharing his dislike on a Trek board. I mean, why even bother feigning an interest in the show if you're going to ignore its representation of itself (indeed, saying 'fuck its representation of itself'), declaring it stupid and with a creator who was clearly on crack whenever he wrote something you didn't like?
Where did Roddenberry state that the number in the script he polished was wrong?
Desperate claim. Addressed on my page.
That job ended in 1969. Yes, Desilu or Paramount would've been most likely to send questions to his office from '66 to '69, but you're mixing creator and owner together in an unhealthy way. It is helping with your misunderstanding of canon.
Live-action Star Trek was not being produced in 1973, 1974, or 1975, so your "bullshit" response is utterly, "laughably" mistaken.
However, you and I did both forget the Animated Series in production at that time, so even though your response was invalid I withdraw the statement that initiated it.
Who forgot the Animated Series with me?
But it is not, itself, canon.
Then clearly fans don't talk about what's canon. Oh, wait ...
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your side. Anything that can be done to reject the canon statement is being done . . . assaults with masses of non-canon silliness, claims of drugs, claims of error, claims of disagreement with no basis, dismissal of any and all data about Trek, dismissal of the canon, and any other intellectually dishonest mental hoops required to try to short-circuit the simple fact of the canon.
And when I said 'well just admit the canon value is nearly-a-million and then you can go on about your business' you totally flipped out, whereas a confession of the truth would've had me gone.
I don't care what you believe in your personal mental Trek. The ship could weigh less than a feather for all I care. But your pretense that nearly-a-million is completely invalid and not even worthy of acknowledgement for long enough to say that it exists as the canon figure is tiresome.
There you go with that loony claim again.
Impressive. I would actually be willing to go for a 190,000 tonne dry spaceframe, but it appears that such a compromise position would involve admission of nearly-a-million at some point in the chain so yes, it's a no-go.
Why
Tell
Me?
Per the FAQ, "Note, however, that screaming "non-canon!" by itself shouldn't carry extra weight, unless a canonical source contradicts a non-canonical one."
Frankly, the nearly-a-million line should end the argument. One could go on discussing explicitly-non-canon masses until blue in the face and it would be all good.
But in any case, I note this is the second time in the thread that someone receiving Shaw's ire has also received a warning. There may be more history I'm unaware of having just ventured back in to the board after a long absence, but I think after this thread concludes I'll go back to not coming.
Besides, this isn't the first time I've found people around here who like to freak out when they hear 'canon'. Seems there's a specific sort that fits in.
*blinks* lots of blah blah and so on flying around, ah well, my two Euro cents, IMO I think the peeps that made trek knew that CVN 65 who was the largest warship build in the 60's was around 92,325 tons Starship Enterprise is quite a bit bigger so we'll make that 190.000 tons, okay?
Ummm... who was warned and what ire?
It sure looks to me like you came into this thread with a major chip on your shoulder. You seem to characterize yourself as some form of canon holy warrior, and you continue to get more and more upset because people aren't bowing down to your point of view. This was never a discussion for you, and this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone as you said from the outset:
"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."
Which is fine, but doesn't seem to be enough for you. Since that time you've seemed to have the single minded goal of winning, though this was a discussion and not a contest.The only person I know of who was asked to back off besides you was SicOne... a person I don't know nor have I addressed at any time that I can recall. If that is what qualifies as ire for you, then 99% of the members of the TrekBBS have received it*.
And I thought that you were even more proud of yourself thanks to me. All this time I figured I was doing you a favor and this is the thanks I get?
* Please note that that figure is an example of hyperbole and should not be used as canonical reference material.
I don't have anything personal against any of you folks, and in fact tend to like most of you, so this is not meant in any personal/inflammatory way.
That said, from a lurker's perspective it seems like the recent Vance and DSG2k argument mostly stems from their difference in definition of 'canon.' Vance regards canon as the materials created for use in creation of the show. DSG2k uses the CBS-Paramount definition of canon (those things said or shown on screen excepted the Animateds.) True?
That said, from a lurker's perspective it seems like the recent Vance and DSG2k argument mostly stems from their difference in definition of 'canon.' Vance regards canon as the materials created for use in creation of the show. DSG2k uses the CBS-Paramount definition of canon (those things said or shown on screen excepted the Animateds.) True?
The problem is that the CBS-Paramount definition of 'canon' was also used for the creation of their shows (notably TNG, DS9, and VOY), in so much as when they actually followed it.
My problem is that DSG2k not only fails to recognize that fact, but insists on using his interpretation of canon as a damning attack against those who do not follow his exact interpretation, and has no problem resorting to personal attacks, and accusing people who actually WORK on the series of HATING it because they dare venture from his definition - regardless of this history or details involved.
I do not want to getting flaming or anything resembling that, but when have any ships had their inertial masses quoted assuming a certain percentage of M/AM onboard?
- Status
