Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:18 pm

I thought about over-riding that number for the mass actually, for that very reason. But it is an official number, and we have so little on this ship that is official I went with it. Still might decide to put something more sensible in there at some point, have to wait and see.

Tyyr · Post by **Tyyr** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:14 pm

I pointed that out in the nits but didn't hear anything back on it. It's an amazingly light number for a ship of the Connie's size.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:36 am

Maybe they discovered a lighter alloy?????

Lazar · Post by **Lazar** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:52 am

Bolognium!

steamrunner · Post by **steamrunner** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:23 am

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:20 am

Clearly the ship is made out of handwavium.

Tyyr · Post by **Tyyr** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:07 pm

Or aerogel.

stitch626 · Post by **stitch626** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:49 am

Wouldn't aerogel shatter from a person kicking it?

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:58 am

Lazar wrote:Bolognium!

and

Rochey wrote:Clearly the ship is made out of handwavium.

Make...........stupidium

The new alloy of the Trek universe 8)

Post by **Tsukiyumi** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:02 am

dagadget · Post by **dagadget** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:32 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:I thought about over-riding that number for the mass actually, for that very reason. But it is an official number, and we have so little on this ship that is official I went with it. Still might decide to put something more sensible in there at some point, have to wait and see.

I have to agree, light displacement light on shields and the fire power is not all that high for such a big ship. The time line reboot made the ships way bigger but not more powerful. Lets see a galaxy Class sized E Nil at a Miranda displacement. Lighter indeed. lots less material in the ship or they just did not do the homework, If you base it off of modern ship construction the mass should have been much like Graham's numbers posted for the original time line ships (Nice work BTW Graham) I also noted that the Kelvin's displacement is twice that of the new Enterprise, looks like a Star Trek XI YATI

Avatar2312 · Post by **Avatar2312** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:50 am

Maybe the Kelvin was built of pure sturdy iron

But after all. It took hell of a beating from the Narada where several other federation ships would have already been destroyed (being hammered for way over a minute. The fleet over Vulcan didn't last that long). A much thicker armor makes sense. Maybe they sacrificed it for... well, something else.

dagadget · Post by **dagadget** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:29 pm

Avatar2312 wrote:Maybe the Kelvin was built of pure sturdy iron

But after all. It took hell of a beating from the Narada where several other federation ships would have already been destroyed (being hammered for way over a minute. The fleet over Vulcan didn't last that long). A much thicker armor makes sense. Maybe they sacrificed it for... well, something else.

Good point here New ships made of Composites sort of like modern graphite which is much lighter than steel. I have a feeling that between that and less armor that would make the E Nil lighter but I have a hard time with twice as large and twice as light......

zero_saiyaman · Post by **zero_saiyaman** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:50 am

That, or the new trek ship has a more realistic weight. Look at a floating steel block, the super carrier USS Nimitz ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_%28CVN-68%29 ), it's longer than the original connie (not as high, however), and only 103,000 long tons in weight when fully loaded (or 104,648 metric tons), verses the gangly looking original connie's 600k! No way is the original connie realistically that heavy unless it's totally made from depleted uranium or something (maybe not even then!), especially since it isn't a solid block like a carrier (ok, a carrier isn't, but it's much closer to one than a connie is) and has mostly empty space within its dimensional volume. This new connie seems more in line with realistic weight based on real ships from what I can tell. But who knows XD

dagadget · Post by **dagadget** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:13 am

zero_saiyaman wrote:That, or the new trek ship has a more realistic weight. Look at a floating steel block, the super carrier USS Nimitz ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_%28CVN-68%29 ), it's longer than the original connie (not as high, however), and only 103,000 long tons in weight when fully loaded (or 104,648 metric tons), verses the gangly looking original connie's 600k! No way is the original connie realistically that heavy unless it's totally made from depleted uranium or something (maybe not even then!), especially since it isn't a solid block like a carrier (ok, a carrier isn't, but it's much closer to one than a connie is) and has mostly empty space within its dimensional volume. This new connie seems more in line with realistic weight based on real ships from what I can tell. But who knows XD

Humm going to check this out but then again we don't know what Monotanium is made of either. The newer stuff is duranium and that seems to be an improvement on monotanium

Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

Re: Stats/Information on the new Enterprise