There are several - previously unknown or semi-canon (Starship Spotter) - facts given at the new site. Those include:
Sovereign class - crew: 885, max cruising speed 9.7 (everything else, lauch date, vague length and so on nothing new) Warbird - 1,280 meters (was this mentioned in the Encyclopedia, too?), 115 decks, crew: 1,650, max cruising speed: 9.0
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That's not bad...my SciPubTech poster up here puts the Sovereigns at 130 officers & 725 enlisted...so the right area. I consider an error of 30 to be pretty good for a ship this size.
And did anyone here ever try t'do a deck height reconstruction on the warbird? There's SO many little windows, so who knows if it's really 115 decks? And maybe that's that "enhanced bird" someone else mentioned before.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
We did a while ago, but judging by the windows in the nose section we get a deck count of 45-55 decks. I suggested that maybe the nose is in fact a large freight storage and cargo bay area, with one deck actually the heirth of two normal decks. This would also explain why the window rows in the aft section are much closer to each other.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I remember they had a double-height cargo bay in the TNG ep "Face of the Enemy" ... so the idea of double-height decks may be plausible.
As for the window-to-deck theory... when was the last time that a window count actually provided an accurate estimate of the decks? (Aside from a series-regular ship that was thoroughly planned from the beginning, like the Enterprises and Voyager.)
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
But what else could we do to figure out the deck count? There are no recognizable spots, no visible item that could reveal the size of the ship in comparison, no MSD, nothing. All we have are several different - more-or-less - estimations of the size, ranging from 900 meters to 1800 meters.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Speaking of these new warbirds, are we talking about refit D'deridexes, a new if similar class, or a Borglike "they have always looked this way" thing?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Just to throw in a useless bit of minutiae:
The Sovereign class (or at least the Enterprise) carries a crew of 885.
The Galaxy class Enterprise carried a crew of 1,012.
However, the U.S.S. Grissom mentioned in DS9 (the ship that the homicidal Vulcan served on) carried a crew of 1,200. Yet Okuda lists it as an Excelsior class ship. Does anyone think differently about Mike's conjecture, or were the crew really shoved in there like sardines?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Speaking of these new warbirds, are we talking about refit D'deridexes, a new if similar class, or a Borglike "they have always looked this way" thing?
I think it's half 1.), half 3.).
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Just to throw in a useless bit of minutiae:
The Sovereign class (or at least the Enterprise) carries a crew of 885.
The Galaxy class Enterprise carried a crew of 1,012.
However, the U.S.S. Grissom mentioned in DS9 (the ship that the homicidal Vulcan served on) carried a crew of 1,200. Yet Okuda lists it as an Excelsior class ship. Does anyone think differently about Mike's conjecture, or were the crew really shoved in there like sardines?
THe Excelsior is still roomier, than say, a Nimitz class carrier. Those thing's got 6000+ people a piece, including the airwing.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Funny, IIRC the TNG episode Remember Me (where Dr. Crusher gets trapped in a static warp bubble) mentions the crew size (or the number of people on board including family and civilians) of the E-D as 1,014.
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
yeah, because no one ever left the E-D or died or anything. and they never got any replacements either
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
i might also add that ships crews can be mission specific.. the ship can take on extra scientists and diplomatic or military personnel as needed, but pare down the crew on longer missions or whatever.. maybe the Enterprise had a visiting officer aboard at the time (we kow they had one passenger, Dr. Quaice.. they were referring to the actual number of being aboard, not the number that was 'supposed' to be there).. also, was there a cap on family sizes? if a baby was born, or someone brought their wife aboard, did someone else have to leave to keep the crew down? probably not..
another tidbit i once read, about crew sizes, is that the always figured the standard Constitution-class crew at 430, but Kirk repeatedly said they had 429.. this was a reference by the writers to show the fact that Spock did double duty as XO and Sci O, and eliminated the need for one crew member.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
I think 1,014 was mentioned on "Conundrum" as well. And if 1,012 is the real number and 1,014 was mentioned in that episode, where's the other person? "Commander Kieran MacDuff" was the 1,013th "crewmember".
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
*sigh* Dat, what I'm saying is that the E-D's crew complement was set at a standard of 1,012 (as well was that number mentioned in a few episodes), but the crew could actually fluctuate over the course of a voyage.. several crewmembers died and a lot of new ones popped up.. the additions of Guinan and Ro, the birth or additions of several children such as Molly or Alexander. Any one of these could contribute to small shifts in the difference between the number of people aboard and the original crew complement.
all of these happened, as well as many more, and some could explain the difference.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Very true indeed. Of course, I'll just add that I don't recall ever hearing 1,012 in any episode. I only heard 1,014 from the episodes. Perhaps the reason why everone sticks with 1,012 is that it was in the series bible. Otherwise, where did that number orginally come from?
My point being that, yes, the number does actually variate a lot and that the number isn't always 1,012 or 1,014. But I keep hearing 1,012 as the static number when I recall 1014 being mentioned at least twice and I wonder where 1,012 first came from. No one when mentioning the (static) crew size of the E-D ever says 1,014. It's always 1,012.