How much does the Enterprise weigh?

[Gagarin]

Thing is, Garagin, Shaw has put up that material. There are a number of threads in this form and the Art forum about Shaw's work and research. He's cited it repeatedly, and it's repeatedly ignored in favor of someone else's 'flavor of Trek' - which, of course, must be religiously adhered to as 'official' even when in ain't.

I carefully look for and read every one of Shaw's posts, it wasn't that he hasn't posted, it's just in parts in the middle of debates. And people disagree. Or ignore. Or whatever. And then he gets in a huff. Might not be the best 'forum' to get a point across in a sea of shouting people.

What I was mostly referring to is his 'not sharing as much for now on' and any unshared recently done work, or any other things he might find because he 'wants people to do work themselves'. Which is hypothetical and in the future.

 

[Wingsley]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but there is another issue that I think is being overlooked.

Scotty's "million tons of vessel" remark may have been a reference to the starship Enterprise's mass while underway, which means the million-ton figure not only includes the ship's hull, equipment, engines and crew supplies but also other bulky substances such as the crew's water supply (presumably a generous supply) and, much more importantly, the ship's fuel supply. Keep in mind the Enterprise was on a five-year mission. It is logical to assume that the Enterprise would carry sufficient fuel and potable water to carry on at least a major part of that mission, if not most of it.

Why? Because it is a starship, which by definition is expected to travel into deep space for significant periods of time without returning to a friendly port. That's what makes the Enterprise markedly different from any real-world sea-going vessel. Starfleet knows the possibilities that their starships could be lost on the frontier. It could be that some ships are destroyed and others are damaged "out there" and will need at least some level of self-sufficiency to help the crew survive. Think of it as a "Delta Vega" scenario.

Also keep in mind that fuel is needed not only for the ship's engines but also for probes, shuttlecraft, and photon torpedoes. Without fuel in storage, how would any of these items be useful?

In the TNG Tech Manual (and, if I'm not mistaken, the TNG Writer's Tech Manual) the 5-million-ton figure is floated for the Enterprise-D. Presumably, the lion's share of the Enterprise-D's mass is fuel. (At least, that's what I remember reading.) You can dismiss it as TNG technobabble if you like, but it is food for thought.

 

[Shaw]

-pointless negativity-​

... Enjoy it? Do it. Don't enjoy it? Then don't.

-pointless negativity-​

There's a choice - share, or keep it to yourself...

-pointless negativity-​

Share, or don't share.

Boy, that was sure a different tune than you were singing back in this post... but you are right, it boils down to a simple choice.

I can deal with more posts like yours... or not.

I thank you for your frankness, you've made that choice much easier.

 

[Gagarin]

-pointless negativity-​

... Enjoy it? Do it. Don't enjoy it? Then don't.

-pointless negativity-​

There's a choice - share, or keep it to yourself...

-pointless negativity-​

Share, or don't share.

Boy, that was sure a different tune than you were singing back in this post... but you are right, it boils down to a simple choice.

I can deal with more posts like yours... or not.

I thank you for your frankness, you've made that choice much easier.

That was damn near 2 years ago, Shaw.
And you're still singing the same tune, like Dante in Clerks.

It's the same tune. Love your work, hate to see it stop, want to see more. But the unappreciated/misunderstood/stoic/suffering artist bit needed to stop.

And I called you out on the bogus bandwidth excuse. I was pointing out what it was - you deleting your stored archive would be nothing but sour grapes. I'm not wrong.

I would read whatever you post, look at anything you post, probably love anything you post. But I can do without the drama posts.
"The truth is out there...It seems that you guys need to do more of this on your own, so I'll be sharing less of what I've found. After all, my research was intended for only one person... me."
^that, above all else, is what I was responding to. Because it's a wall banger.

And...done.

 

[Shaw]

And I called you out on the bogus bandwidth excuse. I was pointing out what it was - you deleting your stored archive would be nothing but sour grapes. I'm not wrong.

I host 3 clients sites, my Dad's site and two sites of my own, yet TrekBBS accounts for nearly half of my total bandwidth. I've posted very few images over the last 6 months, and yet that hasn't gone down.

So yeah... you are wrong, and it is something I've been considering for quite some time. And considering that much of that is (as you pointed out) from two or more years ago, it has most likely been up too long anyways. And I know that many people do house cleaning more often than I do.

But unless you are donating money (which I've always accepted on my site), you don't really have a say in this.

And...done.

Exactly.

If I was having second thoughts, I'm not any more. Thanks!

 

[Captain Robert April]

So, shall we take it as established that the 1964 format pitch is accurate as to what Roddenberry put together at the specified date?

 

[Shaw]

So, shall we take it as established that the 1964 format pitch is accurate as to what Roddenberry put together at the specified date?

I don't know about the we part, but you should feel free to take as established anything you want.



After all, you never let the lack of a we stop you from believing that the bridge facing forward was established... why would you need this to be any different.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I decided to go back and take a more detailed look at this post and do a more detailed response...

Why use the weight at all in that pitch? It doesn't say anything about anything if you are no where near having a design (that would start out super small).

Again, to make it clear that this is a serious show, as opposed to Lost in Space, with their miniscule crew in their flying saucer ship.

Having the crew compliment is more understandable, except that the evidence shows that they were thinking in the range of a few dozen people before the ship was designed... and that the size started growing in October 1964 to the point where the design might be able to finally have 203 people on board.

Same reason as including the weight, and also a key reason why those early designs were rejected; they weren't big enough to fit the concept GR put forth in the pitch.

And Lincoln Enterprises was post series (and post TMoST).

Actually, it was started during TOS, run by John and Bjo Trimble, originally under the name of "Star Trek Enterprises", but to avoid legal hassles with Paramount, the name was changed to Lincoln Enterprises.

To give you an idea of what I would consider a valid copy of that data from 1964... something like this. But even then, those dates are wrong (as I cross checked them against the dates on the clapboards of many of the scenes from The Cage).

The data doesn't fit with what they were working toward in the Summer of 1964, and even the 203 number doesn't really work with the previous version of the Enterprise prior to the final design.

Last time I checked, March isn't in the summer. A lot can happen (and did) between March and June.

But here is an important question... are you trying to save your original stance or are you trying to find out what actually was. When data starts to contradict, do you stick with what you are familiar with or do you go with the stronger data?

As always, I'm willing to be proven wrong, but that requires PROOF, not supposition. Remember when Aridas put together a flawlessly logical argument that Jefferies must have seen "First Spaceship on Venus" and used that in designing the bridge of the Enterprise, only to have the whole thing fall apart when Mike Okuda offered up that he'd asked MJ about that very question and found out that he'd never seen the film? I think we're in similar territory now.

It took me a long time to give up on preconceptions I had built up in the 70s, 80s and 90s, but when things stopped adding up, I started looking for more evidence of what happened.

Just because TMoST is unreliable on some matters doesn't mean it's unreliable on all matters. Especially when it's providing direct quotes and not engaging in speculation (like the size of the filming miniature, which Stephen Poe quite possibly never even saw, or the internal layout of the ship, which even the writers and producers couldn't all agree on).

Edit: I've removed a lot from this post. I forgot, you are still working on a straight forward bridge... so once you get an idea in your head, it is a waste of time trying to change it (as was most of what I put together). I recall reading all the information that MGagen gave you that you dismissed on a number of subjects, and don't wish to repeat that.

Feel free to ignore everything I posted.

I never dismissed the info he provided, or the info that you provide. I just don't always agree with the conclusions you arrive at based on that information.

 

[Captain Robert April]

So, shall we take it as established that the 1964 format pitch is accurate as to what Roddenberry put together at the specified date?

I don't know about the we part, but you should feel free to take as established anything you want.



After all, you never let the lack of a we stop you from believing that the bridge facing forward was established... why would you need this to be any different.

I believe it was established because that's what Matt Jefferies, Bob Justman, and everyone else who worked on the show believed, that the bridge faced forward. It's like when Doug Drexler asked Jefferies where Engineering was; MJ shot him a weird look and said it was in the Engineering hull.

If you have proof that the format pitch has been altered, let's see it. Otherwise, it's another conspiracy theory.

 

[Shaw]

If you have proof that the format pitch has been altered, let's see it. Otherwise, it's another conspiracy theory.

Okay.

Best of luck on your plans.

 

[Captain Robert April]

In other words, you have no proof.

 

[Unicron]

Let's cut the personal crap now. Shaw, you and the other regulars know I don't like to wear my mod hat often, when it can be avoided. But frankly you're very close to getting a trolling warning from me. I'd really prefer this thread not go off the rails like the other one did. Keep the replies on topic, and please try to handle disagreements respectfully. That's usually the case, and that's how I like to keep it.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I do think this has raised an element of the design process that hadn't necessarily been considered, namely the probable reasons why the earlier designs Jefferies offered up were rejected; they were too small to match up with the notion that GR had in mind for the ship, as exemplified by the figures put forth in that format pitch.

 

[Vance]

Four threads in as many weeks? ... Still the same shit.

April, we know there's no proof that you'll ever accept, even if Zombie Gene and Zombie Matt showed up to tell you themselves. There's no point even replying to you at this point - you've got your own version of Trek-Tech and let nothing dissuade you. Just, ya know, don't shit on everyone else.

Shaw, you are overplaying the martyr card just a bit.. and this is coming from me, a man who went through a few decks. Back it off, ignore the forums, and block TrekBBS if the bandwidth seepage is that bad.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I hate to reopen this old can of worms, but it makes me wonder if something similar happened in STXI. Much has been made of the production team going for a "grander feel," a reference which has never been elaborated on; we were lead to believe they were simply referring to the appearance of the shuttle bay and the need to cram several large craft in there, or -- somewhat sarcastically -- to BSG/Star Wars penis envy.

But when TOS came out, it does seem to me that previous sci-fi hero ships tended to be small house-sized operations; the Jupiter-II as an example, or the C57D from "Forbidden Planet." There were, of course, production/modeling reasons for this, namely the need for ships to land on a planet and the need to minimize the number of extras required, but more than that, it was just a matter of sci-fi ship designers not having any idea how large a ship would need to be for interstellar travel.

STXI's contemporaries include not just Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica (both versions of it), but also Babylon 5, Stargate, Farscape, and a whole host of one-hit-wonders from the 1980s on, all featuring immense starships with immense missions. It may well be that a larger Enterprise is needed to stay ahead of the times to imply "serious business going on in space!" just as it was in 1964.

 

[Warped9]

Unless someone shows otherwise I'm inclined to think that the ship's weight was something of a guess on GR's part. And it's something that's never really been challenged or seriously explored because at the time 190,000 tons was far beyond what most people could imagine when thinking about a large ship.

Because I'm no engineer by any stretch I wouldn't know how to begin calculating the ship's weight in a serious way. But since it is fictional, and because I'm doing something similar with my own pursuits, I'd approach it in a rough way. I'd take the individual components and find something real world of comparable size as a starting point.

If a contemporary U.S. carrier is in the 100,000 ton range then I'd try to get a rough idea of its volume. I then do the same thing for each major component of the Enterprise. Then I'd compare what size percentage each component is of the carrier. That would give me a rough idea of what each component could weigh. Then I'd add them all up and that figure would be my starting point to extrapolate from. For example if the secondary hull were equal to about 35% of the carrier's size then the secondary hull would be about 35,000 tons. Like I said this is rough. Then you continue from there with the saucer, the dorsal, the support pylons and the nacelles.

When I've got a rough figure then I might knock off 15-20% to allow for futuristic materials used in construction.

 

[Vance]

I think a lot comes down to if the pitch we all see really was the original pitch, and there can be some question about that. GR may have indeed guessed (doubling the weight of a carrier) when first throwing out numbers of the ship, or he may have had something in mind. In other words, as the ship started to 'come together' from Matt's drawings, Gene was getting a better feel for its size and capabilities. There's some evidence of this, as detailing and model tweaking never actually stopped through the entire show's run - often by Gene himself making requests.

It's also possible that when the pitch was 'discovered' for Lincoln Enterprises, it was 'edited for resale'. This is certainly true for some other odds and ends that Lincoln Enterprises put out, so it could make some sense that part of the 'reconstruction' included data that wasn't there to begin with. :S

Tough call, and the principals who would know are no longer with us.

The question we're left with is, does the 190,000MT work with what we know about the ship. Oddly enough, it really does appear to. It's comfortable (even a little heavy) when compared to vessels of its size. The mass allows for some 'dense areas' of the ship, while keeping the VERY light corridors of the saucer, etc.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Four threads in as many weeks? ... Still the same shit.

April, we know there's no proof that you'll ever accept...

Sure there is, like a copy of the format pre-TMoST that doesn't read the same as every other copy I've seen, or a credible statement from someone saying that the later copies were altered. So far, I've been presented with precisely jack squat, with a heaping side dish of no logical reason why they'd change that format pitch in the first place.

Bob Justman's shooting schedule from seven months later, however, doesn't prove a gorram thing. Hell, they were already rehearsing and the script showed the captain's name as James Winter, so changes were coming fast and furious, and not just with the ship design.

 

[Vance]

Sure there is, like a copy of the format pre-TMoST that doesn't read the same as every other copy I've seen, or a credible statement from someone saying that the later copies were altered.

I've had a couple of versions of the book which were different, but I don't know if it was just more than an organization pass. My first version (long gone now, sadly) didn't have any of the art inserts, for example. I have a Titan Books version now which is amusing because someone 'corrected' the spelling of color (into colour), etc, all over the place.

I will say this, there are details in the "Star Trek Is..." as presented in the TMoST book that I have that does not quite correspond from the Lincoln Enterprises version that I have. The notable differences are the removal of references to Spock being a Martian, and the change from visiting 'asteroids' to visiting 'planets'.

So far, I've been presented with precisely jack squat, with a heaping side dish of no logical reason why they'd change that format pitch in the first place.

For TMoST? There's easy enough reason to explain issues with the book - there's nothing in the book that would really make any party look bad or (worse in this case) uneducated about these issues. Star Trek was the first major TV show for 'hard' science fiction, and admitting that 'we were really making shit up as we go' back then would be a disaster. Sure, we know and accept it (well, most of us) now...

But it does all seem like to me that Gene had a 'size' of ship in mind, based on being 'as big as / bigger than a carrier' and drew the mass accordingly. Again, sadly, the principals are no longer with us, so proof either way will NOT be forthcoming.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I will say this, there are details in the "Star Trek Is..." as presented in the TMoST book that I have that does not quite correspond from the Lincoln Enterprises version that I have. The notable differences are the removal of references to Spock being a Martian, and the change from visiting 'asteroids' to visiting 'planets'.

Not sure where that "asteroids" reference is, but mine has the bit about Spock being half-Martian. Oddly enough, that part is also in TMoST, page 30.

So far, I've been presented with precisely jack squat, with a heaping side dish of no logical reason why they'd change that format pitch in the first place.

For TMoST? There's easy enough reason to explain issues with the book - there's nothing in the book that would really make any party look bad or (worse in this case) uneducated about these issues. Star Trek was the first major TV show for 'hard' science fiction, and admitting that 'we were really making shit up as we go' back then would be a disaster. Sure, we know and accept it (well, most of us) now...

Again, the format is presented as an historical document, detailing the original ideas behind the formation of the show. With so many of the other details being clearly changed, it makes no sense whatsofreakingever to alter anything about it. It makes no sense to alter it during the telling of TMoST, and it makes no sense for copies sold through Lincoln Enterprises to have been altered. Like I said before, they didn't even bother to fix the typos in the copies of the Writer's Guide they sold, why would they change anything in the format pitch?

But it does all seem like to me that Gene had a 'size' of ship in mind, based on being 'as big as / bigger than a carrier' and drew the mass accordingly. Again, sadly, the principals are no longer with us, so proof either way will NOT be forthcoming.

Bjo ran Lincoln Enterprises when it started, and Dorothy Fontana saw the format before anybody else did (for all we know, she might've typed the thing up). I think they might have a few thoughts on the subject, especially if any revisionism took place.