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!
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
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!
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
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.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
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...
posted
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.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.)
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Excellent. I really thought I was in the minority when it to the ol' GEC. Excellent fan production and eagerly anticipated.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
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!
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
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.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
mass = volume * density
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Ugh. Doesn't help much, does it?
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
