• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Size comparison Constitution and Intrepid?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Crewman47

Commodore
Newbie
Both these class of ship are almost identical in length and height but yet the Intrepid has only 15 decks and 150 crew and the Constitution has 23 decks and 400 crew. Now assuming the deck height of the Intrepid is around 4m and the deck height of the Constitution is around 3m, how is it still that both these ships can be similar is size but be so different internally?

It's one thing that I can never understand becuase I don't know enough about design engineering like this to figure it out, although I do understand that there can be technological differences in two ships separated by a 100 years to account for a smaller crew but I just can't see how it can be different?
 
You can go to Jeff Russell's STARSHIP DIMENSIONS, it is a great site where you can drag ships around the page to compare sizes. For starfleet ships go to the -2X page. Here is a link: http://www.merzo.net/

As for the differences in decks, there are areas in the Intrepid's engineering hull that are larger than on the constitution class and like Dax said on DS9 "They used to pack them in on the constitution class".
 
Last edited:
I think it was in DS9's "Trials and Tribbilations" where the 23 decks came from for the TOS Enterprise but nothing from the series itself. At 9' or 10' per deck on the Constitution I'm not sure you'd get 23 decks. In anycase, the only physical stats we have from the series (and not applied from a spin-off) are:

Constitution
"almost a million gross tons" - Scotty, "Mudd's Women"
Highest deck number in dialogue = 12, although there could be more decks below "Mudd's Women", "The Enemy Within".
A schematic with scale of the Enterprise and Klingon Battlecruiser
"430 crew" - "Day of the Dove"

Intrepid
"700,000 metric tons" - "Relativity", "Phage"
"15 decks" - "Relativity"
 
I figured once that for there to be 11 decks in the saucer section, the distance from deck sole to deck sole would be exactly seven feet. Allowing for deck thickness, air ducts, piping, wire runs, that doesn't leave much room for head room. Scotty's statement of the Enterprise being "almost a million gross tons" is interesting one, a gross ton is a unit of volume, not mass or weight. A single gross ton is cube one hundred feet on a side. A million gross tonnes would make Kirk's Enterprise many thousands of feet long.

trekcrosssectionstubby8.jpg
 
a gross ton is a unit of volume

A Gross Register Ton is a unit of volume. A gross ton is simply the same as the long ton, that is, 2240 pounds. The Gross Register Ton is never shortened to gross ton, for the above potential for confusion. It's shortened to Register Ton if necessary.

Highest deck number in dialogue = 12

Isn't van Gelder initially sighted on Deck 14 in "Dagger of the Mind"?

Timo Saloniemi
 
how is it still that both these ships can be similar is size but be so different internally?
I would suggest a change in design philosophy between those eras: In TOS, the space between decks was thin, but there were entire decks packed with equipment and narrow maintenance access spaces, whereas in the TNG era a lot of that equipment is just sandwiched between the decks, accessed from above or below.
Also, there is room to doubt the 21 decks figure (which I believe originates from Mr.Scott's Guide to the Enterprise). Even if it got mentioned on-screen ... Didn't The Final Frontier give a number over 100, and numbered in the wrong direction?

As for the crew, advancing technology really can make a huge difference. It can be a bit hard to get real-world examples to help wrap one's head around that though, but I found two.
The Iowa Class Battleships, when introduced in the 1940s, had a crew of 2700. When they were refit in the 1980s, their new crew was 1800. That's a 33% reduction in the crew size due mostly to newer tech.
I believe I read that during the extensive refit of USS Enterprise 20 years ago (the nuclear aircraft carrier), they replaced its reactors with new units rather than just refueling. I recall reading that 5 new units could provide more power than the 8 old units, and each new unit was smaller than the old units. They were talking about how roomy Main Engineering was going to be after the refit because of that. The point here is, not only will new equipment need fewer guys to run it, it will be physically smaller too.

But wait, you say, if the equipment got smaller, why is the ship still huge? It's worse than you think: although their maximum dimensions are similar, the Interpid Class is actually about 3 times the size of a Constitution Class by volume. (http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics.html) So the crew is smaller, but the ship is bigger.

One look at the crew quarters will help explain that: in the TNG era, ships are a lot roomier. Picard's quarters dwarf Kirk's.
Using the volumes from that site above, you see that the Constitution Class had about 490 cubic meters per member of the crew. The Galaxy Class, on the other hand, has about 5650, or roughly 10 times as much. And Voyager? About 4400, which is not quite as nice as a Galaxy Class, but loads better than an old Connie.

What's in that space besides bigger quarters? Holodecks and stuff. While the TOS hallways were pretty wide, by TMP they were pretty claustrophobic, but by TNG they were wide again (trivia fact: the TNG hallways use the same sets at the TWOK hallways, with the walls moved farther apart).
Don't feel too bad for those TOS crewmen, though: modern Coast Guard regulations for civilian ships only require each crewman have 30 square feet for his quarters.
 
Highest deck number in dialogue = 12
Isn't van Gelder initially sighted on Deck 14 in "Dagger of the Mind"?

Timo Saloniemi
Yes, he was.
[Corridor]
UHURA [OC]: Repeat, all sections to alert condition three. Intruder aboard.
SECURITY: (to intruder who has swapped overall with technician) Hey, you from Engineering! (runs) Bridge. Section C, deck fourteen.
Also Trials And Tribbleations:
DAX: Chief, here are the coordinates. The Captain and I will start on deck four and work our way aft. You and Julian should start on deck twenty one
O'BRIEN: And work our way forward.
Suggesting there are at least 21 decks in their opinion.
 
Highest deck number in dialogue = 12
Isn't van Gelder initially sighted on Deck 14 in "Dagger of the Mind"?

You are correct Timo - I missed "Dagger" in my notes. Good catch!

@SpyOne - Yeah, that's why I mentioned "Trials" as a spin-off and not from the original source series. As to "The Final Frontier", the 100+ decks and numbering goes back to Scotty's dialogue about the poor QA used on assembling the ship or it was all an alcohol and bean concocted dream :D

Edit: 21 decks: After looking at the TOS ship, 21 decks could work if all decks were 9' in height.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's just the way the decks are counted? After all, if you treat each of the dorsal levels as having a unique deck number (instead of deck 9 saucer / deck 9 dorsal etc) then even on MJ's cutaway there'd easily be enough room for at least 23 decks, this time of a sensible height!

trekcrosssectionstubby8.jpg


So, we would have

SAUCER - decks 1-9
DORSAL - decks 10 - 16
SEC HULL - decks 17-23

OK, so you could technically go straight from deck 6 to deck 10, but is that really a problem? ;)

Anyway, perhaps this is just how O'brien misinterpreted the deck plans he saw?
 
Your best bet is this page with the calculated volumes of each starship: according to this, the Intrepid has nearly three times the volume of the Constitution class.
 
For fuck dammit shits's sake already, Scott's line was never ever ever meant to be taken literally. He was supposed to be being hyperbolic out of frustration. Please stop using that line as gospel. Even if you do, like a complete addle-headed moron, take that line literally, the same episode is otherwise filled with material that's was nearly immediately retconned anyway.

The ship was always, always, always, always 190,000MT in mass. From the first fucking draft (yes, the "Star Trek Is..." draft) through Roddenberry's own writings (TMP novelization, interviews). It was never a debate until Okuda fucked it up for everyone (by citing Scotty here like a total moron who just wanted to piss on Franz Joseph for shooting his dog with an elephant gun as a child).

It's 190,000 metric fucking tons.

There, can we call this settled now?
 
Perhaps Scotty refers to its maximum sub-light speed tonnage. At full impulse the ship would have more mass than sitting still right? As the engineer, the maximum tonnage he has to push through space is probably the number he keeps in mind.
 
So, on one hand you've got episode dialogue that gives you the mass of the ship at "almost 1,000,000 gross tons" and never retconned onscreen in the same series and on the other hand you've got printed material that gives the mass of the ship at "190,000 metric tons" and never quite made it to the TV series but did make it to books, games and tech manuals.

Seems more of a personal choice as to which number to go with (or even an arbitrary number) as there are plenty of variations of Star Trek to go around :)
 
Yeah, Blessed.. and Scotty ALSO calls Harry a "Jackass". Are we to assume that Harry, since there's no hard evidence 'in canon' to the contrary, isn't really just a polymorphed beast of burden? After all, this is SCOTTY, dammit, everything he says is absolutely literal!

Scotty was expressing nothing more than exasperation. The same thing we do when we say 'your mother weighs a ton' or you 'walked a mile to school, uphill both ways!". IT's not MEANT to be literal, never was. Only canonista idiots take it as so, in order to show off how fucking 'smart' they are while simultaneously missing the entire point of that line of dialog.
 
So, on one hand you've got episode dialogue that gives you the mass of the ship at "almost 1,000,000 gross tons" and never retconned onscreen in the same series and on the other hand you've got printed material that gives the mass of the ship at "190,000 metric tons" and never quite made it to the TV series but did make it to books, games and tech manuals.

Seems more of a personal choice as to which number to go with (or even an arbitrary number) as there are plenty of variations of Star Trek to go around :)

Only if you ignore the fact that a "gross ton" doesn't actually weigh anything since it is, in fact, a measure of VOLUME. Interestingly enough, calculating vessel mass from "gross tons" in the conventional way would yield a displacement of around 304,000 metric tons; since the Enterprise isn't a boat and is probably constructed from much lighter materials, 190mt sounds about right.
 
@Vance - Well sure, if you believe that is what Scotty meant, then that is one way to look at it. I don't see either number any more valid than the other although I prefer to cite an episode nowadays. I remember growing up with the lower mass number and reading the books and games thinking that was the mass of the Enterprise. Nowadays I happen to have it that episode on DVD, so I think of the higher mass more. To each their own interpretation ;)

@newtype - Actually that counter-argument came up a long time ago and Timo has already answered it. A "Gross Ton" is (according to Google conversion) 1 gross ton = 1 016.04691 kilograms. (Don't confuse it with Gross Register Ton which is volume and it'll make more sense.)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gross+ton
 
Considering Scotty's line comes in the context of a mid 1960s TV show, it doesn't seem likely he would be referring to anything OTHER than gross register tons. The GRT was a common unit used as much by American sailors as anyone else; the latter was, IIRC, much more common in Europe until the final switch to the metric system.
 
Except of course that there exists a "Gross Tons" so you're just trying to inject the word "Register" into it, correct? :) Afterall, Scotty didn't sound like he was referring to the volume of the ship ;)
 
Given that there are only two references in all of Star Trek to the mass of starships, "Mudd's Women" and "Phage", why not give them the utmost credibility? Both are even sufficiently elaborated on that we know what sort of units are used: Scotty defines "gross ton" which is a known unit of weight also used as a unit of mass, and the EMH uses "tons" in an episode where the writers had other Voyagerites specify metric tons, known units of mass.

Using units of displacement would make rather poor sense in space: if the poor bairns had to haul around a trillion Gross Register Tons, that'd be no different from propelling three and a half Gross Register Tons, because both would displace exactly zero gram of medium...

Timo Saloniemi
 
Because, Timo, you wind up with a starship that's a practically a block of solid lead. It's that simple. The little-bit-more-volumunous USS Nimitz masses in at 106,000MT and it's a far more densely-packed ship than the Enterprise is shown to be. So you've already got a ship that masses twice more than then you would expect for her size.

Then you multiply that again by five times over? That would require all the equipment, etc, that we see to be solid lead at least. Else you have so much material in construction that the crew can't fit into the thing. Funny no one thinks of what that number would really mean, but, hey, a super-heavy ship sounds 'cool', right? I mean, it has to beat heavy ships in Star Wars! We've got an ego to preserve here!

The 1,000,000MT is a bullshit number. Period. It was coined with no more reason or logic than the dumb-ass "Jane Doe Starship" and has gone a long way to making Star Trek the special moron of science fiction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top