Real World figures for SPACEDOCK ships.

[Highway Hoss]

I was thinking about writing up a couple of my designs in "real world" numbers, so I wanted to ask a question of the mods and the group:[list=1][*]How much energy does one power unit equal in TeraWatts?[*]How much energy in TeraJoules does one damage point equal?[/list=1] Any help would be appreciated.

[J T]

Apologies to Steve Long (a.k.a. the Freakin’ Genius!) : I think Space Dock is a GREAT Game, but its power allocation systems doesn’t fit very well with the NUMBERS given in the ST:TNG Technical Manual.

According to page 55 of the TNG Tech Manual it takes 4x10^13 (that’s 4 with 13 zeros behind it) joules per second per cochrane for a Galaxy Class to sustain its emergency speed of warp 9.6. According to page 556 of the ST Encyclopedia (Version 3) Warp 9.6 is 1909 Cochranes (1909 times the speed of light). So it takes 7.6x10^16 joules per second to sustain warp 9.6. That is 76,000,000,000,000,000 Watts (joules per second).

It takes a Galaxy class 48 points of power to reach warp 9.6 and a combat turn is 5 seconds.
So 7900 Terajouls (7.9x10^15 joules) equals one Space Dock Power Point.

Sounds simple you say – wrong

According to page 24 of the TNG Tech Manual powering all of a Galaxy’s Interial Dampeners takes 36 Megawatts (3.6x10^7 watts). It cost 16 points of power to run all the IDFs at full power for 5 seconds.
So 11 Megajoules (1.1x10^7 joules) = one point of power.

According to page 77 the maximum combined output of all the impulse engines is about 2 Terrawatts. (2x10^12 watts). A Galaxy class Impulse engines put out 112 points per round so one point = 80 Gigajoules (8x10^10 joules).

You see the problem?
You can continue the process through out the TNG Tech Manual, but you just get more of the same. The power costs give in Space Dock (which is really cool, and I really love) don’t correspond with the official “cannon” numbers at all.

The main saucer emitter does 200 points of damage. It is made up of 200 emitters. Each requires 5.1 Megawatts to operate a full power. So to produce 200 points of damage it takes 5100 Megawatts (5.1x10^9 joules) (assuming the phaser blast lasts 5 seconds).
Thus 1 point of damage = 26 Megajoulse (2.6x10^7 joules)

A Photon Torpedo has 3 kilograms of reaction mass (mass that is converted into energy). This results in the release of 270000 Terajoules (2x10^17 joules). A standard photon torpedo does 200 points of damage.
So 1 point of damage = 1350 Terajoules (1.35x10^15 joules)

Mind you this discrepancy can be rationalized. A torpedo releases Gamma Radiation (very high frequency light) a Phaser beam disintegrates matter directly. Per joule of energy a Phaser is a MUCH more efficient weapon of destruction.

In case you’re interested the phaser emitters gives us the following:
One point of power = 260 Megawatts (2.6x10^8 watts).

It's all a bit of a mess

My recommendation (though I’d love to hear Steve’s comments on this matter!) is to use the above numbers to pick the value for one Point of Power that fits best with your view of the ST universe, and use that for all your games.

If you have any questions about the above don’t hesitate to ask!

[Highway Hoss]

I feel your pain J T. I went through the TNG tech manual myself and all I got was a splitting headache.
Another source I've been using is the Daystrom Institue Technical Library website run by Graham Kennedy, a superb site for all things Trek. He actuallly wrote a couple of articles on the power output of a Galaxy-class starship and on weapons output. One problem is that the offical sources contradict themselves so I've been thinking that I should just pick some numbers that work using the Galaxy-class as a benchmark.

[StyroFoam Man]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

[Lancer]

Originally posted by StyroFoam Man
If there isn't enough power according to the plot, than you'll have to find another solution.

Maybe upgrade to a more powerful plot line?

[SIR SIG]

Hear, Hear!

Speed/Use of plot sucks.

My games are based on real (TREK) Physics and Science

[ghosty]

Originally posted by SIR SIG

My games are based on real (TREK) Physics and Science

You mean the type that has no basis is reality?

Truth is the writers of the TNG Tech Manual are just making up the numberrs as they go along and I agree with Styro, power is what the plot dictates it should be, you can't nail it down to hard numbers because the mathematics and physics would probably just cause your head to explode. I have absolutely no idea what JT was talking about.

[qerlin]

Originally posted by StyroFoam Man
This is how we deal with it....

"Power Output Is Dependent On The Plot and/or the whim of the Narrator "

If there isn't enough power according to the plot, than you'll have to find another solution.

Yeah, Baby!!

[Highway Hoss]

Well, after taking a look at the possible figures involved, I decided that using Watts, Terawatts etc. was a BAD IDEA. The problem is that the numbers get really big when dealing with warp cores (one figure put the 1701-D's warp core output at 10 million terawatts!!! ) So instead I will use the power figures basically as a rating system. For real world purposes, I will assume that each increase in a ship's power rating will cause the "real-world" figure to increase exponentially (For example eeach point of difference between 15 and 20 power will represent a larger amount of energy per point than the difference between 5 and 10).

[Steve Long]

(though I’d love to hear Steve’s comments on this matter!)

Glad to oblige.

My thoughts are these: the Power system is an abstract designed to help you run a game. I deliberately did not equate Power with terrawatts, or SUs with given amounts of volume, specifically because I consider that pretty much utterly unnecessary. The Power rules are designed to help you balance considerations of power usage during the game and try to achieve an appropriately dramatic feel to your ST games.

If you want to rewrite the system for absolute terrawatt (or whatever) accuracy, I say go for it. If you'll have more fun with that, that's what you should do. But I don't want it and I ain't writin' it up.

Steve Long

[Highway Hoss]

Originally posted by Steve Long:
If you want to rewrite the system for absolute terrawatt (or whatever) accuracy, I say go for it. If you'll have more fun with that, that's what you should do. But I don't want it and I ain't writin' it up.

I wasn't wanting to change the system, just use the stats to write up the ship in non-Spacedock terms. Like I stated previously, I decided to give up on the idea when the numbers stared getting WAAAY too big.
Now, the rules concerning High-Yield Torpedo tubes, on the other hand...but that's for another day.

[J T]

Ghostly said:
“Truth is the writers of the TNG Tech Manual are just making up the numbers as they go along”

More or less. They do put a little thought into the numbers. Though not as much as I’d like. For example the power out put of the phasers pistols is too low (by about a factor of 1000) to make rocks glow.

“and I agree with Styro, power is what the plot dictates it should be, you can't nail it down to hard numbers because the mathematics and physics would probably just cause your head to explode.”

I have no problem nailing the power costs down to hard numbers (whether Spacedock’s or the Tech Manual’s is irrelevant). But then I have a BS in Physics.

Ghostly said:
“I have absolutely no idea what JT was talking about.”

My general point is that the ratios of power costs in Spacedock bear absolutely no relationship to the ratios given in the Official Technical Manuals. Thus us you cant use the Manuals to find a definitive value for one power point. Trying to nail down one point of damage in terms of Joules of energy is even sillier because the effect of being hit by 500 joules of sunlight is VASTLY different from being hit by 500 joules of kinetic energy from a bullet. “Damage” is such complicated concept that is very difficult to apply real physics (or units) to.
If you could be a bit more specific about what you didn’t understand I’d love to explain.

Steve Long said
“Glad to oblige.”

Thanks!

Steve Long said
”My thoughts are these…. The Power rules are designed to help you balance considerations of power usage during the game and try to achieve an appropriately dramatic feel to your ST games.”

I would also add that most ST RPG fans love the idea of allocating power do different systems. Since the Technical Manual basically ignores this idea (unless a Galaxy Class is going Warp 9.6 it has enough power to run EVERYTHING on the ship at once). So if you want a “power allocation” system for your game you MUST ignore the numbers given in the Technical Manual.

Steve Long said
”If you want to rewrite the system for absolute terrawatt (or whatever) accuracy, I say go for it. If you'll have more fun with that, that's what you should do.”

Actually I did (Long before Spacedock hit the stands) but I must say that it is about as complicated as Spacedock and not as much fun for war games.

Steve Long said
”But I don't want it and I ain't writin' it up.”

That’s fine with me. I use Spacedock for rules and plot ideas, and my own system when I need power costs, volume, or mass numbers. And even if his physics is a little lazy Steve is still a Freakin’ Genius!!

[NobAkimoto]

First post here, so maybe I should watch where I step but...

Most of the time I think you should rate a starship's energy capacity at pure energy density rating(amount of energy the fuel can theoritically create if dumped all at once), nominal output(said energy density/amount of time sustainable at cruising speed), and maximum sustainable output(energy density/amount of time sustainable at maximum sustainable speed.) In some cases you can throw in combat output, but you'd need to know the rough outputs of your weapons beforehand.

So, without saying as a general rule of thumb, the easiest way I've found for generating power figures is to simply come up with endurance figures(time you can travel at full fuel capacity) then use that figure to divide from the main fuel capacity's combined matter/anti-matter energy density.(Which you'd get at some ridiculous figure like 15-20E22J)

The easiest example for this would be say, the Enterprise-D.

Discounting the TNG:TM figures for a second on power consumption at warp, the ship has a 480 ton capacity for anti-matter. Assuming equal reaction with deuterium, you'd get a figure of approximately 8.64E22(Or 86.4 trillion TJ.) Now, if we take canonical(I think) figures for energy efficiency at 97%(which is IMO too high) total potential energy density for the GCS equals about 83.8trillion TJ.

Now the GCS is supposed to be able to travel at 3 years at cruising speed without refueling, which gives us a sustained figure of 885TW.(Note TM Figure for Warp 6 is IIRC somewhere around 1,000 TW. Which is roughly within margin of error.)

For a maximum sustainable output for the GCS, we get a figure of roughly 1,940,000TW. (8.38 trillion, divided by 3600, divided by 12. In case you were wondering about my math. ) This consequently is quite a bit below the actual assumed maximum sustainable figure given in the TM for Warp 9.6.('bout 4.6million TW I think.) Quite a bit of a disrepency there, so I'm going to assume that they either screwed something up in the math, or they simply forgot to fix something in their calcs.(Could be they were trying for the original Warp 9.2 specs.)

In general I find the TNG:TM's energy consumption is a pretty good measure, albiet one that's a bit too on the high side.

However there's quite a few drawbacks to this method.

First off, the assumption that there's a 97% effiency in energy conversion is to say the least absurd. While I believe this was actually mentioned on screen once(Geordi saying something about managing to get the core up to 97.2%? I think it was in the episode Force of Nature. But I might be mistaken. He was in a competition with the CEO of the Intrepid over engine efficiency so maybe I just imagined a figure.) I'd still take it with a grain of salt, since the figure is highly unrealistic.

Second, while I have faith that Federation technology would most likely be capable of channeling such levels of energy, it seems rather unlikely that Starfleet could simply just be limited by the size of their warp fuel deposits in terms of speed.(If it were such a case, then we could imagine a Deep space explorer like the GCS having a much larger percentage of it's internal space dedicated to fuel.) Component wear(more or less within warp cores and power conduits and the warp coils themselves) would probably be a more deciding factor at higher warp than actual fuel capacity. However with perhaps recent advances in supposed warp efficiency(Sorry for being a skeptic, but I don't believe the Intrepid class should have nearly the output of the GCS like Graham believes. In addition it's simply impossible to dedicate enough room in the GCS to make it go at Warp 9.9(at least looking at the power curve) for 12 hours given the earlier figures of consumption) things might be leaning towards fuel capacities again.

In general however here's a decent guideline to maximum sustainable output. I've assumed that current Federation technology doesn't allow for safe useage of the Warp Core above 2.4million TW(Too many conflicted sources for the Sovereign, but I wanted to give her a rather high endurance level of 20 hours, so I've put that up rather than a lower figure of 12)

-Explorer(Large Cruiser, Battleship, Carrier, whatever you want to call it. As long as it's over 2 million metric tons in displacement. Ships in this category would include Galaxy, Sovereign, Nebula Ambassador classes.)
Roughly 2.5million TW Sustainable over 12-24 hours.(I've put a Sovereign class at the very top end of the scale, assuming that it dedicates more space to fuel than the GCS.)

-Heavy Cruiser(Displacement between 1million-2million metric tons. Whatever the TM's say, the Akira class falls under this bracket as it has a volume of 1.4 million cubic meters.)
Roughly 1.5-1.8million TW sustainable over 12 hours.

-Light Cruiser(Displacement over 500,000 metric tons, less than 1 million. Again, ignoring the TM figures since they're ludicrously high, the ships in this category are Intrepid, Steamrunner, Prometheus, Constellation, Excelsior, Norway. Might be less broad, with frigates filling the sub-700,000 ton area. Have to recheck my New Orlean figures...)
600.000-850.000 TW sustainable over 12 hours.

-Destroyer(Displacement less than 500,000 metric tons, more than 100,000. Includes Miranda, Constitution(At least by the 24th century standards...), Sabre)
300,000TW sustainable over 20 hours.(Fuel level should be matchable to above, but size prevents it from surviving such a high output. Seems more likely component wear is a factor along with artificial limitation due to core size.)

-Escort(Defiant class. Volume of this class is only 62,000m^3)
Variable. I'd assume roughly 500,000TW or so.(Assumption that Defiant is overpowered.) Standard ship would be about 100,000TW over 12-30 hours depending on component wear.

Got a little long.

I hope I haven't missed much, but there's probably a bunch of figures I should fix.

[Highway Hoss]

First of all, Nob Amikoto, welcome to the boards. Hope you have fun.
Glad to see someone at least taking a crack at this. The real question is converting the power rating from Spacedock into real world numbers. Trying this ended up giving me a headache. Want to take a shot at it?

[NobAkimoto]

I suppose I can take a shot at it.

Though I'm not really familiar with the LUGTrek rules and the Spacedock stuff yet.

Judging from what I've seen so far I think at least for larger ships a figure of about 2500TW/unit would work. (This is simply derived from the Sovereign class. It gives a figure of 1,900,000TW of useable power, while fitting with a 60,000TW output figure for phaser arrays...)

However, I don't think it's quite as good as it could be...

I'll run some more figures when I have time later.