posted
Target: Really. I don't remember hearing that figure (I haven't seen "Mud's Women" in about 15 years) or seeing it elsewhere. Do you know if that figures appears in any other references? The masses of the TOS and refit Enterprises (about 200,000 tons) are usually taken from the (admittedly non-canon) Star Fleet Technical Manual and "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise." These figures sound about right to me given that aircraft carriers displace around 100,000 tons.
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
posted
TFO is right, Saboc. The ships section in the DS9TM is full of it. Only about 2% of the specs are correct. The section is good for ship scans, though.
------------------ "Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets) Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
posted
When talking about crew compliments, don't forget that ships in times of war probably don't have science officers and such on board. Or they are doing other things or transfer'd to other ships etc. That would probably significantly reduce the number of the crew. Just a thought,
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
The 190,000-ton mass figure can be found in the earliest draft of the Star Trek outline, alongside that old crew complement of 203 from "The Cage". That's -way- before the Enterprise's design was nailed down in hundreds of sketches - Jefferies only worked with a vague idea of a 200-foot (61m) ship, as suggested by Roddenberry.
The crew complement was changed to 430 following the upscaling, but the mass number stuck around. The figures on ships in the DS9TM are based on Rick Sternbach's 4.5 million ton estimate of the Galaxy's mass, which in turn was based on the ship's volume x density figures of present day spacecraft.
As such, the refit Constitution designs seem to have a mass approaching that of the Intrepid. Bearing in mind the fact that the earliest figure didn't apply to the final Enterprise design, the question remains open to discussion.
Boris
------------------ "Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."
---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide
posted
Boris: Do you by any chance have Sternbach's figures for the Galaxy's volume and the density of current spaceships? Also are those densities for fully fueled spaceships or just dry weight?
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
You can find the quotes if you search in the earliest messages at startrek.expertforum.ricksternbach, but that might take a while. He only gave a couple of density figures for NASA rockets, didn't mention the actual volume of the Galaxy class.
I'm surprised that very few people have tried to calculate volumes of various starships, something that would be rather easy to do. All you need to do is put a scale model in a container with water, and measure the displacement (the change in volume). You'll still need to make the correction for scale, but that shouldn't be too hard either (x scale^3?).
I don't know how water affects the models, but Rick Sternbach advises to seal'em up well.
Boris
------------------ "Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."
---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide
posted
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the water displacement method has been suggested many times, but how many people have actually tried it? I tried it and it was too messy and inaccurate. You need a pretty large containers of water (for the large circular primary hulls) and a method of accurately measuring volumes, such as an enourmous graduated cylinder. I found it easier to build models out of clay than reshape the clay into cubes, which can then be measured with a ruler. If anyone has tried the water displacement method, I'd be interested in hearing what values you obtained.
By the way, I calculated the volume of the TOS Enterprise (with pencil and paper) to be 197,178.09 cubic meters. If the weight is 190,000 tons, its density is close to that of water. A Daedalus class ships has a volume of 26,436.55 cubic meters.
I question whether using present day spacecraft to determine the weights of Starfleet ships is valid. The functions and constructions of modern spacecraft is very different from that of starships. Launch weights of modern rockets are mostly fuel whereas starships carry relatively little fuel. Rockets are basically just cans of fuel with a motor at the end. Unmanned space probes are a poor comparison since they don't carry any crew and are mostly machinery. Also, modern spacecraft that operate only in a vacuum are constructed to be extremely light: they can't be constructed as sturdily as combat starships. I think a better comparison would be modern naval warships or perhaps aircraft and the space shuttle. In particular, warships are extremely similar to starships in layout, function, and crew. Also, their density is less than water, or else they'd sink.
For these reasons I think the weight of TOS Enterprise of about 200,000 tons seems correct. It's certainly better than 1 million tons, which would require a density 5 times greater than water.
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
The section is good for ship scans, though. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
