"Why the Enterprise-D Was Badly Designed"

[Tallguy]

I'm not a TNG guy, but unlike many other ships in Star Trek, it WAS designed. (That's what happens when you don't fire the people who actually know how big the ships are.) (Well, you don't fire them until the end of the first season anyway?)

As I'm sure folk have mentioned this was SUPPOSED to be the only place all of these people could go for years at a time (not counting strange new worlds that they encountered). To say nothing of the only scientific, medical, and *ahem* combat equipment they would have had on hand.

For the latest version of the Constitution class? Yeah, it's oversized. But boy I'd rather be stuck on the other side of the Delta quadrant in one of these babies than an Intrepid class.

 

[Quantum21]

There's something to it being designed like a cruise ship :

https://gamerant.com/star-trek-why-enterprise-d-badly-designed/

The carpets didn't make much sense visually (in production, it meant easy sound proofing), but it wasn't a hotel design, it was all about technology unchained...Tech no longer had to be machines and edges, and engineers didn't have the last laugh on everybody's knees and craniums.

It's a subconscious thing for most but it was visually appealing.

This article had to be written by someone young right?

 

[BillJ]

I've always loved the Enterprise-D, inside and out. My second favorite Trek ship behind the TOS Enterprise.

 

[Quantum21]

It's big and oversized for its crew complement. The design itself is impractical.

Anyone who has been a lifelong sci-fi fan will probably get a chuckle out of this comment.

Literary sci-fi is filled with huge spaceships, hell they had humungous ones in the 1930s! Freed from atmospheric concerns, and with hypothetically scaled up population + resources a spacefaring race could consider a large ship almost easy. Traveling longer distances could make them even more practical.

TOS was fairly unique as the only US Navy carrier sized ship seen in visual sci-fi up until that time. It popularized the trope.

Star Wars upped the ante, and after TNG made space going TV ships popular again, a plethora of big ships appeared. In 2023 almost every big franchise that has them has bigger craft (and objects) than Trek, even Marvel.

In this context, Trek seems almost understated, even sensible.

 

[Tallguy]

In this context, Trek seems almost understated, even sensible.

Which is why when JJ comes along the ships get HUGE.

 

[Macintosh]

In this context, Trek seems almost understated, even sensible.

Star Trek still has this nautical "almost the entire ship is habitable" thing though. In reality, and for many science fiction franchises, if you need a big living space for a big crew you need a VERY BIG ship. Taking the Omega-class destroyers from Babylon 5 as an example (because they're the ones I have the sums for immediately to hand):

They're HUGE by Trek standards, 1714m long, but their habitable space as represented by their rotating section is significantly lower than the Enterprise-D's. Star Trek ships are 10% engine and 90% crew space, and really it should be the other way round.

 

[fireproof78]

Which is why when JJ comes along the ships get HUGE.

Not really. Only two ships got huge and that was in response to a specific threat.

The carpets didn't make much sense visually (in production, it meant easy sound proofing), but it wasn't a hotel design, it was all about technology unchained...Tech no longer had to be machines and edges, and engineers didn't have the last laugh on everybody's knees and craniums.

It's a subconscious thing for most but it was visually appealing.

I know many find it appealing, and I know I'm in the minority for finding the beige overpowering and maddening on a subconcious level. It doesn't feel very technical; it feels very pedestrian, like sitting in a rental car but in space.

The interiors have some appeal, but the bridge never did because it wasted so much space.

 

[Tallguy]

Not really. Only two ships got huge and that was in response to a specific threat.

Both the Kelvin and the Enterprise are much larger than the Constitution class. (How much larger is apparently up for some debate.) The Kelvin timeline Enterprise is larger than Picard's Galaxy class!

Then of course the whatever-the-hell class in Into Darkness has to be MUCH MUCH bigger than even these.

 

[fireproof78]

The Kelvin timeline Enterprise is larger than Picard's Galaxy class!

Yes, it is. And it was in response to a large, specific threat.

Then of course the whatever-the-hell class in Into Darkness has to be MUCH MUCH bigger than even these.

Dreadnaught class, USS Vengeance. Built specifically to challenge the Narada and then the Klingons.

 

[Macintosh]

The Kelvin timeline Enterprise is larger than Picard's Galaxy class!

It's longer certainly (725m vs 642m), but it still has a smaller internal volume, since most of that extra length is nacelle, and it's still skinny whereas the Galaxy-class... isn't. Not by much, admittedly... off the top of my head it's around 90% the volume of a Galaxy-class (can't find the calculations right now). In particular if you compare them at the same scale a Galaxy-class saucer is still much larger (lengthwise and especially widthwise) than the Abramsprise's.

 

[DonIago]

^Is it aft nacelle?

 

[Quantum21]

Star Trek still has this nautical "almost the entire ship is habitable" thing though. In reality, and for many science fiction franchises, if you need a big living space for a big crew you need a VERY BIG ship. Taking the Omega-class destroyers from Babylon 5 as an example (because they're the ones I have the sums for immediately to hand):

They're HUGE by Trek standards, 1714m long, but their habitable space as represented by their rotating section is significantly lower than the Enterprise-D's. Star Trek ships are 10% engine and 90% crew space, and really it should be the other way round.

Entire sections of the Trek ships are not habitable: including large, multiple computers cores, much of engineering, deuterium tanks, almost all of the nacelles.

 

[Macintosh]

Entire sections of the Trek ships are not habitable: including large, multiple computers cores, much of engineering, deuterium tanks, almost all of the nacelles.

I did say almost. But let's do some sums! A quick back-of-an-envelope calculation should give us some idea of how much the Enterprise-D is actually habitable.

Enterprise-D total volume: approximately 5,821,000m³

From this we'll subtract:

• Nacelles: (approximately 280,200m³ each)
• Computer cores (2×10,300m³ + 2×8,200m³) – I'm basing this on Sternbach's published deck plans. Each core is about 20m in diameter, and the saucer cores are ten decks tall whereas the secondary hull core is eight decks tall. Sternbach also shows a "ballast article" to balance the secondary hull core, which seems somewhat wasteful – why not just give the Enterprise four computer cores? Anyway, I'm including that here because it doesn't seem habitable.
• Deuterium storage (63,200m³ + 32×113m³). The size of the main storage tank is given in the TNG Technical Manual, which also gives the volume of 32 secondary deuterium tanks located in the saucer.
• Minus navigational deflector (8,000m³) – Volume derived from Sternbach's deck plans.
• Photon Torpedo Launchers (3×5,400m³) – Volume derived from Sternbach's deck plans, and I'm including the saucer's one from the TNG TM that we never got to see on screen.
• Warp core (160m³) – Yes, this takes in the full height of the core. Yes, it's stupidly small.
• Impulse reactors (18×113m³) – Volume of each reactor is given in the TNG TM, I just counted them from the deck plans. There seem to be several spare, possibly for backup power generation.
• Antimatter pods (30×100³ + 340m³) – Volume and number of pods given in the TNG TM. Also including the antimatter generator, because the TNG TM gives us the dimensions for it so why not.

All of these removed from the total volume of the Enterprise-D gives us a remaining habitable volume of approximately 5,127,050m³. Even if we generously remove another 100,000m³ due to "miscellaneous systems" – all those shield generators, inertial damping generators, structural integrity field generators, ODN junctions, EPS conduits, water tanks, replicator storage, self-sealing stem bolts etc – we still have a total habitable volume of 5,027,050m³. Let's round it down to 5,000,000m³ for convenience.

That's still over 85% of the ship's entire volume. That's absolutely bloody massive. That's over 4,900m³ per person. That's the equivalent of six generously sized US family homes per individual person aboard the ship. That's A LOT of space! The TNG Technical Manual states that "as the Enterprise left the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards, approximately 35% of the internal volume was not yet filled with room modules and remained as empty spaceframe for future expansion and mission-specific applications" – I suspect it's more that they simply ran out of things to put in her!

Edited to fix some issues with the formatting.

 

[Quantum21]

I did say almost. But let's do some sums! A quick back-of-an-envelope calculation should give us some idea of how much the Enterprise-D is actually habitable.

Enterprise-D total volume: approximately 5,821,000m³

From this we'll subtract:

• Nacelles: (approximately 280,200m³ each)
• Computer cores (2×10,300m³ + 2×8,200m³) – I'm basing this on Sternbach's published deck plans. Each core is about 20m in diameter, and the saucer cores are ten decks tall whereas the secondary hull core is eight decks tall. Sternbach also shows a "ballast article" to balance the secondary hull core, which seems somewhat wasteful – why not just give the Enterprise four computer cores? Anyway, I'm including that here because it doesn't seem habitable.
• Deuterium storage (63,200m³ + 32×113m²). The size of the main storage tank is given in the TNG Technical Manual, which also gives the volume of 32 secondary deuterium tanks located in the saucer.
• Minus navigational deflector (8,000m³) – Volume derived from Sternbach's deck plans.
• Photon Torpedo Launchers (3×5,400m³) – Volume derived from Sternbach's deck plans, and I'm including the saucer's one from the TNG TM that we never got to see on screen.
• Warp core (160m³) – Yes, this takes in the full height of the core. Yes, it's stupidly small.
• Impulse reactors (18×113m³) – Volume of each reactor is given in the TNG TM, I just counted them from the deck plans. There seem to be several spare, possibly for backup power generation.
• Antimatter pods (30×100³ + 340m³ ) – Volume and number of pods given in the TNG TM. Also including the antimatter generator, because the TNG TM gives us the dimensions for it so why not.

All of these removed from the total volume of the Enterprise-D gives us a remaining habitable volume of approximately 5,127,050m³. Even if we generously remove another 100,000m³ due to "miscellaneous systems" – all those shield generators, inertial damping generators, structural integrity field generators, ODN junctions, EPS conduits, water tanks, replicator storage, self-sealing stem bolts etc – we still have a total habitable volume of 5,027,050m³. Let's round it down to 5,000,000m³ for convenience.

That's still over 85% of the ship's entire volume. That's absolutely bloody massive. That's over 4,900m³ per person. That's the equivalent of six generously sized US family homes per individual person aboard the ship. That's A LOT of space! The TNG Technical Manual states that "as the Enterprise left the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards, approximately 35% of the internal volume was not yet filled with room modules and remained as empty spaceframe for future expansion and mission-specific applications" – I suspect it's more that they simply ran out of things to put in her!

The Enterprise-D is certainly different than the Constitution refit, that easily is about 75% non-livable.

Keep in mind these appraisals of the D's massive size don't take into account the stated purpose of having extra space for evacuations and other missions.

I've also always assumed almost the entire secondary hull was not for crew habitation.

Some other sections we can take out are the various shuttle bays and associated spaces.

 

[Macintosh]

The Enterprise-D is certainly different than the Constitution refit, that easily is about 75% non-livable.

Yay more sums! This is going to be harder than for the Enterprise-D because there's fewer definitive stats.

Constitution refit total volume: 235,000m³

From this we'll subtract:

• Nacelles: (approximately 26,700m³ each)
• Computer core (1,050m³) – Based on Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise and the Strategic Design blueprints, the refit Constitution has a single computer core that runs the full height of the centre of the saucer from immediately below the bridge to the sensor dome at the bottom of the saucer
• Deuterium storage (520m³). There's no definitive size or even approximate location given for the refit Enterprise's fuel storage. Some sources suggest it's combined with the antimatter storage facility at the bottom of the warp core (MSGttE). SD's blueprints put the deuterium storage next to the impulse engines in the saucer, at the top of the warp core. This seems extremely small, but it's possibly just a buffer tank.
• Navigational deflector (2,500m³) – Again, no definitive information on how much internal volume the deflector takes. MSGttE shows that it's just a "surface feature" with no internal components, which doesn't agree with anything we know today about how navigational deflectors work, so I went with the SD blueprints again.
• Photon Torpedo Launchers (1,500m³) – Easier to figure out because there's a detailed set of the launcher interior and we have an upper limit on its size from the fairings on the neck. Rounded up a bit to account for a a magazine space in the decks above.
• Warp core (2,750m³) – Easy to figure out since we know it's the full height of the ship and we have detailed set plans of the central part.
• Impulse engines (5,200m³) – Easy to figure out from the shape of the impulse module on the saucer.
• Antimatter storage (580m³) – Based on the space at the bottom of the warp core designated in both MSGttE and the SD blueprints.

All of these removed from the total volume of the refit Constitution gives us a remaining habitable volume of approximately 167,500m³. Let's remove some of this like we did for the Enterprise-D to allow for miscellaneous systems etc and round down for convenience's sake to 160,000m³.

That's still about 68% of the total interior volume.

Keep in mind these appraisals of the D's massive size don't take into account the stated purpose of having extra space for evacuations and other missions.

I've also always assumed almost the entire secondary hull was not for crew habitation.

The Enterprise-D's secondary hull has a LOT of crew quarters, and a sickbay of its own (and also holodecks according to the TNGTM, though they're missing from Sternbach's blueprints – but then so are any transporters in the secondary hull). Picard also has spare quarters there, and there's multiple sets of VIP guest quarters in the neck (due to the good views, presumably). The secondary hull needs to be able to provide necessary crew facilities in case the ship is separated for an extended period of time. It's also reasonable to assume that some of the engineering crew might rather live there than up in the saucer.

Some other sections we can take out are the various shuttle bays and associated spaces.

I'm meaning "liveable" to mean "people can go there without dying", not "people sleep there". The shuttle bays and cargo bays and other facilities are liveable space. Perhaps we should use the term "crew space" instead?

 

[TommyR01D]

I agree, 10,000 people sounds like a better fit for the Enterprise-D crew size than 1,000 people.

How about 11,169?

 

[Macintosh]

How about 11,169?

The Enterprise is not a mining ship.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Star Trek still has this nautical "almost the entire ship is habitable" thing though. In reality, and for many science fiction franchises, if you need a big living space for a big crew you need a VERY BIG ship. Taking the Omega-class destroyers from Babylon 5 as an example (because they're the ones I have the sums for immediately to hand):

They're HUGE by Trek standards, 1714m long, but their habitable space as represented by their rotating section is significantly lower than the Enterprise-D's. Star Trek ships are 10% engine and 90% crew space, and really it should be the other way round.

The amount of useful living space could've been improved if they added more Rotating Habit-sections to their design.

Only having 2x sections makes it woefully small.

Even the minimal of having a "Cross" shaped section would've doubled it's internal Habitat-able space.

If you increased the sections from 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6, you could've easily expanded the amount of space and still have room between the sections to mount point defense that rotated with the Habitat section.

 

[Macintosh]

The amount of useful living space could've been improved if they added more Rotating Habit-sections to their design.

Only having 2x sections makes it woefully small.

Even the minimal of having a "Cross" shaped section would've doubled it's internal Habitat-able space.

If you increased the sections from 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6, you could've easily expanded the amount of space and still have room between the sections to mount point defense that rotated with the Habitat section.

Well, the rotating section is plenty big enough for a crew of over 1000 people, even given the relatively low tech of EarthForce in the Babylon 5 universe. The Omegas are the Babylon 5 equivalent of aircraft carriers or dreadnoughts and are purely military ships – they aren't supposed to have much in the way of creature comforts. They are not a Galaxy-class equivalent. There'd be tradeoffs to doubling the size of the rotating section, such as it having a significant gyroscopic effect and these ships don't have inertial damping. Increasing the size of the rotating section would further limit the Omega's already limited manoeuvrability. She has to be kept lean. The rotating sections are like two opposing wedges rather than a continuous ring because it keeps the interior design much simpler and therefore robust – we never see an Omega-class ship lose rotation, even after significant battle damage (though we do see the crew of one worried that they might lose "gravity" when under heavy fire). We see many ships in Babylon 5 that have fully circular rotating sections – most notably the Explorer-class (designed for long-term deep space missions – perhaps the most "Enterprise-like" mission profile we see from any EarthForce ship) and the Asimov-class (designed primarily for passenger comfort and transporting civilians).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

There's also a popular fan design, the Poseidon-class supercarrier, that does use a doubled Omega-class rotating section, because its carrying capacity is more important than its manoeuvrability:

Of course the Doylist explanation here is that the design of the Omega-class is a deliberate homage to the Alexei Leonov from 2010: The Year We Make Contact

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Well, the rotating section is plenty big enough for a crew of over 1000 people, even given the relatively low tech of EarthForce in the Babylon 5 universe. The Omegas are the Babylon 5 equivalent of aircraft carriers or dreadnoughts and are purely military ships – they aren't supposed to have much in the way of creature comforts. They are not a Galaxy-class equivalent. There'd be tradeoffs to doubling the size of the rotating section, such as it having a significant gyroscopic effect and these ships don't have inertial damping. Increasing the size of the rotating section would further limit the Omega's already limited manoeuvrability. She has to be kept lean. The rotating sections are like two opposing wedges rather than a continuous ring because it keeps the interior design much simpler and therefore robust – we never see an Omega-class ship lose rotation, even after significant battle damage (though we do see the crew of one worried that they might lose "gravity" when under heavy fire). We see many ships in Babylon 5 that have fully circular rotating sections – most notably the Explorer-class (designed for long-term deep space missions – perhaps the most "Enterprise-like" mission profile we see from any EarthForce ship) and the Asimov-class (designed primarily for passenger comfort and transporting civilians).

The Omega's are literal "Battle-Carriers" in function, where they're a hybrid between the two.
Some of it's "Battle-Ship functionality was compromised" for a small Carrier Air/Space wing.
It's not that great of a "Carrier" because it isn't a dedicated Carrier.

The two rotating sections are designed to balance out the rotational mass, like propellers on a plane.

You need roughly the right amount of mass for each one and proper angles.

The number of blades or sections can be "Whatever Number" you want as long as you balance it angularly and properly attach it to the central spinning shaft.

Design Rule #1) You won't be getting very far with 1-Blade/Section, you need at least 2-Blades/Sections or more.
Design Rule #2) The # of Blades/Sections you have must be equi-angular and as close to identical in mass as possible.
Design Rule #3) If you can have a Counter Balancing rotating mass on the same axis, even better. See Contra-Rotating propellers and their benefits

There's also a popular fan design, the Poseidon-class supercarrier, that does use a doubled Omega-class rotating section, because its carrying capacity is more important than its manoeuvrability:

I do love that fan design, very awesome, would've been better with a full Cylinder for the habitat section