View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 23 Jul 2017 10:55



Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
SOTSF Mysteries 
Author Message
Being a navy brat and former soldier myself, my interests has always been the military aspects of Star Trek. My personal project has been to create an order of battle for Star Fleet in the year 2290 (since alot of the FRS aligned fandom material seems to focus on that point in time). These have been mysteries to me and some of my ideas on them so far:

Ashanti Class Heavy Cruisers - any thoughts on the NCC series for them, backstory? Before the ship timelines were posted I thought they might have been a part of the fleet build-up under-taken in the wake of the discovery of time corridors used by the Tai Shan (see Ascension class dreadnought section of FRS), or an upgrade of a class of exploratory cruisers (undergunned CH, like the Illustrious class carriers built by the UK in the early 80s. They were designated through-deck cruisers in order for construction to be approved) built to complement the Achernar heavy cruisers after the number of those ships to be built was slashed from 68 to 13.

Advance Class Through-Deck Cruisers - I'm assuming these are built to linear tech standards. How do we solve the problem of the vertical/horizontal intermix shaft and anti-matter storage in the secondary hull on a ship meant to have a through-deck flight bay. Maybe twin through-deck flight bays with the engineering section between the bays. Maybe modified ACE engines.

Kovaris Class Destroyers - I originally thought these would be an orlder class of ship than the Saladins due to their description in the State of the Fleet section of SOTSF and the NCC number. Now that Aridas has them entering service in 2246, I assume they are mass produced destroyer design constructed for service in the Four Years War and then placed in mothballs until some were returned to service in 2287-88.

Superscouts - SOTSF states there are three superscout classes. We know the Komarov class is one. What are the others?

I would really like to see some ideas about the support ships of Star Fleet (the unpopular part of Star Fleet). Remember, amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.


13 Jan 2009 19:28
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2008 23:08
Posts: 3101
Location: Star Fleet Publications, Park Presidio Enclave
I like your ideas for the Ashanti and Advance classes, though those are Todd's ships and any background for them would have to be cleared with him. Your take on Kovaris is essentially correct, and matches the dates I was able to glean from my information. As for the superscouts, I know of one other -- Ianetos in 2292.

_________________
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query XVII, 1783

"...here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson, 1820


13 Jan 2009 20:50
Profile WWW
Ok, in the SOTSF Star Fleet Strength table it list fleet levels from 2268 to 2290 and planned levels in 2295. I have put together a spread sheet breaking down the ship types and classes in service for each five year period based on info from SOTSF, FRS, Heavy Cruiser Evolution Chart, and other Treknical sources that complement the FRS view of Star Trek. Based on these sources there are gaps in the numbers, some quite significant. Now in the FRS General Division Index there is a section for Spacecraft and Weaponry of the UFP other than Star Fleet Division. Could these spacecraft be elements of individual member planets national space fleets (ie National Guard Units) that at some times are assigned (Nationalized) to serve in Star Fleet to meet its force level needs?


20 Jan 2009 22:51
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: 05 Jan 2009 09:58
Posts: 196
Another random question on SotSF, regarding starship masses ('displacement').

Is there a particular reason for disregarding the "million metric tonnes" more or less established by Scotty, and going for much lower numbers? I quite like Timo's compromise of claiming FRS/Treknology data files tend to leave out nacelle mass in their listings, and assuming that its some kind of superdense 'magic' material (verterium cortenide in TNG lingo) in the warp coils that makes ship masses go up to 1 million tonnes for Heavy Cruisers.


23 Jan 2009 16:13
Profile
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral

Joined: 31 Dec 2008 20:59
Posts: 3358
Maybe because it isn't realistic? The mass figure for the Enterprise is 190,000. It isn't made out of drawf star matter...


23 Jan 2009 17:36
Profile
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2008 23:08
Posts: 3101
Location: Star Fleet Publications, Park Presidio Enclave
Actually, I thought the ship's fuel was being stored in a form similar to the matter in a dwarf star. I thought it would be stored as metallic hydrogen, and that that would make up the 800,000 MT difference (I now know it would need to be a form of degenerate matter more dense than hydrogen -- but not as dense as the carbon or oxygen in a dwarf star). I can't speak for Todd, and I don't remember if we ever discussed it, but I know that I thought the difference was fuel. The vast majority of a rocket's operating mass is fuel and I thought the same was probably true for a starship. I don't know if I would come up with an idea like that now, but it was definitely what I thought in 1985.

I assumed per TMoST that the fuel was in the secondary hull. As for the nacelles, I think the "coils" (which I called rings) are "negative energy conduits", which I'd assume would weigh almost nothing at all. ;) At each end would be groups of microsingularities, and THEY'D be pretty darned heavy once they got switched on, but the 190000 MT figure was powered down and dry, so there you go.

_________________
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query XVII, 1783

"...here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson, 1820


23 Jan 2009 18:29
Profile WWW
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2008 23:08
Posts: 3101
Location: Star Fleet Publications, Park Presidio Enclave
jhale97 wrote:
Ok, in the SOTSF Star Fleet Strength table it list fleet levels from 2268 to 2290 and planned levels in 2295. I have put together a spread sheet breaking down the ship types and classes in service for each five year period based on info from SOTSF, FRS, Heavy Cruiser Evolution Chart, and other Treknical sources that complement the FRS view of Star Trek. Based on these sources there are gaps in the numbers, some quite significant. Now in the FRS General Division Index there is a section for Spacecraft and Weaponry of the UFP other than Star Fleet Division. Could these spacecraft be elements of individual member planets national space fleets (ie National Guard Units) that at some times are assigned (Nationalized) to serve in Star Fleet to meet its force level needs?


Absolutely. I have often spoken of single-nacelle destroyers being an element of "planetary defense forces"-- just the kind of thing you mention.

I'm sorry I haven't replied to this until now -- I saw your question and was going to quickly type an answer but it must not have gotten logged, or I forgot to do it.

_________________
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query XVII, 1783

"...here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson, 1820


23 Jan 2009 18:40
Profile WWW
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral

Joined: 31 Dec 2008 20:59
Posts: 3358
About fuel.

It depends on the exhaust velosity of the rocket in question. The higher the velocity, the faster the rocket can go. However to get up to the exhaust velocity, the total mass (fuled) has to be the empty mass (where empty mass is equal to 1 unit) to fueled mass, which is 3.718281828, which is the empty mass plus the mass of fuel. See Arthur C. Clarke's "Interplanetary Flight" for more details.

So the amount of fuel required by the Enterprise, depends upon the the exhaust velocity. If the exhaust velocity is lght speed(warp 1), then to get up to warp 14.1, the equation requies e^14.1 times the empty mass of the Constitution. So you will want the lightest ship mass empty possible.

e^14.1 = 1,329,083.28081 times the empty mass.

You can see a problem.

To the the Star Trek Spaceflight chronlogy, and the time barrier concept, then combining them together, a chain of logic becomes possible.

The "first" time barrier, is warp fator four(4), assume that this is the exhaust velocity for the early ships. When subspace radio is invented, the exhaust velecity is warp factor fifteen(15). For the Enterprise it is warp thirty(30).

Now take the warp factor for cruising, and divide by warp four for the early ships. An example: A Cochrane class ship has a cruising speed of warp 2 / warp 4 = .5. e^.5 power = 1.6487213, then dividing by 2.718281828, you get .6065307, or sixty+% of the ship's empty mass is fuel.

But wait! That is just to get up to speed, breaking requires the same amount of fuel. So just to go to another star, requires four times this amount - assuming that one wants to come home....

So a straight line rocket is out of the question... It gets better with more advanced systems.

If yu want to go by Star Fleet Dynamics, for TOS the warp factor is 18.6 for Constitution class ships. For TMP it is 20.3.


23 Jan 2009 20:28
Profile
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2008 23:08
Posts: 3101
Location: Star Fleet Publications, Park Presidio Enclave
John --

I'm assuming you're throwing out the example of warp speed just as an offhand comment, since conventional thrust and warp speed aren't related. But you're on the mark if we are discussing sublight speeds. To compare the Enterprise with an historical example, a Saturn V massed 200,000 kg dry. It massed 2.85 million kg fully loaded -- over 14x the dry mass. We are assuming a much more efficient means of propulsion for the starship -- some form of fusion rocket. Our relationship for the starship is a fully loaded mass that's a little over 5x the dry mass -- 190000 MT to 1000000 MT.

The only question is not mass, but volume. How does the ship as it is portrayed carry ten times its mass in fuel? It has to be a hyperdense fuel to fit in the secondary hull. And the only thing that would qualify as a fuel and as being sufficiently dense is a degenerate matter. A quick look at the Wikipedia article on degenerate matter tells us, (if we are to have confidence in the article) that "degenerate gas can be compressed to very high densities, typical values being in the range of 10^7 grams per cubic centimeter." So, a cubic centimeter will mass 10 MT. If the Enterprise is carrying 810000 MT degenerate gas at this density, it will occupy 81,000 cubic centimeters of volume. A cubic meter is a million cubic centimeters, so its pretty obvious that if carrying degenerate gas as fuel, this starship can easily fit 810,000 MT in its secondary hull. It could fit it in Captain Kirk's shower. We are talking about a fuel tank that's only three cubic feet.

Let's compare energy. A 190,000 MT nuclear rocket utilizing uranium 235 with perfect efficiency could accelerate a rocket to interplanetary velocity using only 190 kg of uranium. That is with a specific energy of about 60 MJ/kg. For the antiproton-initiated fusion rockets we are considering, the specific energy is 90 MJ/ microgram. if my math is right, that is 90 billion megajoules per kilogram! -- 1.5 billion times as much energy.

I'm no physicist, and I'm just throwing these numbers around. But it seems that a small volume of hyperdense degenerate gas used to fuel two antiproton-initiated fusion rockets would probably be sufficiently powerful to accelerate a small mass to half the speed of light in the relatively short timespans we see onscreen. A small mass. One figure I've read discussed is that 7000 times a fusion-powered spacecraft's mass would be needed to accelerate it to half the speed of light.

So, given the incredible mass requirements, "one half impulse" is emphatically NOT one half the speed of light, but rather something considerably less. And/or the space warping capability of the ship is used to accelerate to sublight speeds as well, bending space, probably using antigravitational negative energy only, to push against the fabric of spacetime. It is unfortunate we only hear a term like "warp point five" very rarely, because THAT is how I'd distinguish between this kind of exotic propulsion at high fractions of the speed of light, and the impulse rockets which likely work at far lower speeds.

_________________
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query XVII, 1783

"...here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." -Thomas Jefferson, 1820


24 Jan 2009 00:08
Profile WWW
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral

Joined: 31 Dec 2008 20:59
Posts: 3358
Not quite throwing out the example of warp speed.

A photon reaction driven ship, has as an exhaust velocity, light speed - photons in other words. To get up to light speed would require 2.7181281828 times the mass of the ship empty. This si the straight line computation using Newton's physics. As we both know Einstein trumps Newton in this case, so the ship wouldn't get to light speed, but quite close to it.

A field drive is a light speed exhaust drive. So the same rules apply. It might be more efficient to use a field drive to get to near light speed, because of serveral factors. The first being one of accelleration - a reaction drive is limited to one g if manned. A field drive in the classic sense of the concept, moves the ship with out the benefit of perceived accelleration.

Therefore a warp drive is a field drive of some sort. That is in all media I have ever looked at, it isn't a reaction drive.

The problem with my post of yesterday, is a bit more subtle. It presumes that "warp factors" have some meaning for speed. It may not be this way at all. But might go with the number times c that the ship's drive can produce. That is theoretical verses real world.

To use one of my examples from last night, the Cochrane class travels at warp two(8c), but this says nothing about the "exhaust velocity" of the warp drive itself. it might be 64c instead. So you get 8/64, instead of 2/4.


About your idea for highly dense fuel. I think, and the more I think about it, the more it seems to violate K. I. S. S. You don't want to make from an engineering perspective to many complex devices.

That is, the Enterprise exists in a time where galaxy travel is fully perfected. So it should be as simple as possible in operation. How do we know this? Just look a TOS. It is simple clean designs.

ST: Enterprise (sorry to bring it up) is very dirty designs by comparsion.

Another way to look at it. At the time TOS was written, computer control was in its beginnings. Nobody knew how far it could go, or would go. Therefore this limitation is reflected in the design of the TOS Enterprise. Which means that you are dealing with an old style V-8, versus a modern V-6 computer controlled system. That is, other methods of control would have been used. Simple clean elegant in nature.

To put in another way, would you want to trust your life to something that could be caused to fail quite easliy? So drop 'dense' fuel, and think in other terms. Like onboard, just in time manufacture of the fuel. This is what was done in TAS. This leads to something else. In show's bible, it is stated that the deflector shields can only at optimum power for twenty hours, before becoming exausted. Exausted? Fuel exhaustion? This makes sens if one is cut off from doing what is routine for some reason. That is picking up material for fuel.


24 Jan 2009 11:40
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Forum hosting by ProphpBB | Software by phpBB | Report Abuse | Privacy