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.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Ouch. Well, I actually failed geometry. So...I guess I'll have to balls it.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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!)
posted
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. )
posted
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)
posted
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.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
