It does however point out many of the discrepancies between series: check out the volume on the TOS Enterprise vs. Voyager and include crew compliments and you'll see my point.
...or look at the Prometheus with an active testing crew of only six! They could go days without seeing another crewmember!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Keen!
You should mention Nob Akimoto, the original source of the calculations. All I did was bug him to do the calcs.
Have you considered using any other the other ship masses mentioned, such as 4.5 Mt (I think, from Okuda and Sternbach's TNGTM, again, I think) for Galaxy and the 190 kt for Consitution (from Franz Joseph's SFTM). These give densitites slightly less than 1 t/m^3.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: [QB] It does however point out many of the discrepancies between series: check out the volume on the TOS Enterprise vs. Voyager and include crew compliments and you'll see my point.
Well, yeah, but that was already kinda up in the air. After all, Pike's Enterprise had only 200 . . . Archer's has only 80. Granted, Archer's ship (which ought to be lower tech) should probably have lots of older, bulkier, less efficient tech clogging the volume of the ship . . . but one would think it would also require more people to man it.
In any case, in an era where technology can automate so much, it's little wonder that they don't need quite so many souls aboard a ship anymore. Even Kirk's Enterprise would seem sparsely populated by today's naval standards.
quote:...or look at the Prometheus with an active testing crew of only six!
They were serious about the top-secret bit! Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Keen!
You should mention Nob Akimoto, the original source of the calculations. All I did was bug him to do the calcs.
Consider it done (because I just did it).
quote:Have you considered using any other the other ship masses mentioned, such as 4.5 Mt (I think, from Okuda and Sternbach's TNGTM, again, I think) for Galaxy and the 190 kt for Consitution (from Franz Joseph's SFTM). These give densitites slightly less than 1 t/m^3.
Well, for the purposes of my site, all that exists is the canon. (Granted, if I had it my way, I'd canonize your site and put Enterprise into some parallel universe or something.)
So, though those figures might be interesting, I can't use them.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Warp coils are often touted, non-canon as it is, to be the heaviest components of a starship. However, as E-D vs. Voyager suggests, size isn't everything - it's what you do with it that counts. Anyway, how could this possibly fit intot he calculations? Density can't be altogether that much the same...
Mark
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Unfortunately component masses are even harder to come by than whole-ship masses. The only compenent mass figures I've seen are in the Starfleet Tech Manual, derived from the differences between the kitbashes. These masses suggest nacelles are denser than secondary hulls, which are denser than primaries. But, no, nothing canon.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Now why does this thread remind me of the old GEC Logbook? Specifically, Volume 8, Number 3? (Wonderful article; it's proved quite a useful reference over the years.)
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Huh?
Mark
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid: Now why does this thread remind me of the old GEC Logbook? Specifically, Volume 8, Number 3? (Wonderful article; it's proved quite a useful reference over the years.)
I think I wrote that! I used my own hand calculations for Constitution and FJ's SFTM component masses. Unfortunately, my volume calcs were a bit off.
Posted by Revanche (Member # 953) on :
Excellent. I really thought I was in the minority when it to the ol' GEC. Excellent fan production and eagerly anticipated.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
I was wondering if that was you or not, Masao.
As I said, it's been quite useful over the years in coming up with ballpark mass estimates for ships I've drawn.
I was sorry to see the Logbook go. I was putting together a package to send in when it ceased to be. Then I revamped the set for SSDB, and it went belly up for a while; I thought I had the kiss of death!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
So how DOES one get a mass tonnage amount calculated? My math skills are poor ar best (thus killing my career in glacial morphology, dammit!) & I need to get an approximate tonnage rating for a pre-TOS (2230s) ship with dimensions of 138.6 � 78.4 � 29.4 meters.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
mass = volume * density
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Ugh. Doesn't help much, does it?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: So how DOES one get a mass tonnage amount calculated? My math skills are poor ar best (thus killing my career in glacial morphology, dammit!) & I need to get an approximate tonnage rating for a pre-TOS (2230s) ship with dimensions of 138.6 * 78.4 * 29.4 meters.
Multiply length x width x depth only works if your ship is a Borg cube. Otherwise, you have to use whatever you remember from your middle school/junior high geometry class to figure out the volumes of cones, cyclinders, and circles approximating the shapes making up your ship. Once you have the volume, multiply by your chosen density.
Yeah, the GEC (Galactic Engineers Concordance) was great while it lasted. I was a member for only the last few years. It was killed by the Internet, which is a lot faster and cheaper than mailing out photocopies. The ratio of members contributing material also dropped pretty quickly, way less than 1 in 10, maybe 1 in 50.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Ouch. Well, I actually failed geometry. So...I guess I'll have to balls it.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
It's not that hard, Shik. For nacelles and cylindrical secondary hulls, multiply the frontal area (radius^2 x pi) by the length. For the primary hull multiply the disc area (radius^2 x pi) by the height or a faction of the height, depending on the taper of the hull. (a cone is 1/3 the volume of a cylinder of the same height.) If you're only trying for a rough figure the calculation don't really need to be exact. Estimate a lot. You could also build a model out of legos and calculate the volume that way (seriously!)
Hm. OK, then..thanks for the help. I'll have to hammer it out. [Columbo] Oh, there's just ONE more thing... [/Columbo]
What values have been "decided upon" for the density of a tritanium/duranium hull structure?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
The Volumetrics page has been updated, along with the main chart . . . Scotty's "nearly a million gross tons" had been bothering me.
I've also added a page featuring the list in chronological format, with fairly extensive chronological notes afterward. I'd love to get some comments on that part, though bear in mind that on my site I try to keep firmly to the canon as much as possible.
(I just realized I still need to add the Scotty-edition masses to the chronological chart, so just ignore the present lack of them. )
10. The Defiant's registry was NCC-74205, though we're not sure when exactly she received it. We know that Sisko worked on the ship while at Utopia Planitia, which would put it as being after Wolf 359 (which occurred in early 2367).
In any case, the second Defiant began life as the USS Sao Paulo, NCC-75633.
*That's over 1400 NCC units and a maximum of eight years later, or 175 NCCs per year, lower-limit. The problem is, in order to have had 75633 NCCs in the 214 years since 2161, they'd have had to have maintained an average of over 353 ships per year . . . an even higher rate in the TNG and pre-TNG eras when you consider that the mid-23rd Century rate was only 20 ships per year. Either they were going hog-wild sometime before TNG, or else the numbering scheme was opened up to allow other vessels into it.
I have a little document that i made that kinda gives a ruff estiment of when the ships were built going by stardate.... It might not be totaly correct but i feel its pretty close.. And Yes i am one to beleave that the Amb. class was comm. around 2311 (i think thats right i have been gone from trek so long i dont remember lol)
The Federation being able to build a few hundred ships per year isn't that wild a concept. It is, afterall, a very large empire spanning a large area, with the industrial might of 150 member worlds. In fact, if the Federation only produced a few dozen ships per year, Starfleet would never get anywhere, exploration and defense wise. As they push Federation's boundries further out, they'd only have exponatially more and more space to explore and defend.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)