Figures for ships.

Sylvester

Sylvester

Vice Admiral
After finding out the formula, I have devised the way to convert metric tonnes into earth wieght.

We will use the Concordia for this example,

First, multiply its mass-72,000 tonnes, by 1000 to get KG
Then, multiply that by 2.2. which = 158,400,000 and multiply that by the Gravity of earth, 9.8ms^2. This equals 1,552,320,000 Newtons. To get this to pounds, multiply it by .225 and it equals
349,272,000 Pounds. Divide this by 2000, which equals 174,636 tons in earth wieght.

The eqaution is first. Mx1000, times 2.2, then times G(Gravity) multiply by .225 and finnaly divide by 2,000.

So the Concordia wieghs 174,636 tons on earth.
 
Have you ever taken a physics class?

Tonnes = Metric Tons
Mass = Mass
Weight = Weight
Mass (does not) = Weight

To get the Concordia's weight on Earth, multiply the ship's mass by the planet's gravity. The gram is a unit of mass, not weight.

Class dismissed.
 
I don't think you're right about the pounds (why multiply by 2.2?), but it can't weigh 174,636 metric tons. That's just simple definition of mass.
 
Sylvester said:
I'm right, the Concordia WEIGHS 174,636 TONS or 349,272,000 POUNDS
Click to expand...

You're off on both. First, you can't simply convert tons to tonnes (even the conversion tool I used didn't give me anything). Second, it's 158,731,200 pounds using this conversion site:
http://convert.french-property.co.uk/index.htm

Of course, it claims to be French, so it's trustworthiness is slim to none. :D

P.S. STOP THE SPAMZ PLEASE! We don't need TWO threads on the same stupid topic!
 
Like I mentioned before, even though I don't want to really argue about it, the metric ton and the tonne are one and the same. Look at your own coversion page.
 
ChanceKell said:
the metric ton and the tonne are one and the same.
Click to expand...

I didn't say metric ton. I didn't specify, but I guess next time I'll remember to. I was refering to the imperial ton.
 
Why do figures matter? The Concordia can weigh more or less, depending on the amount of armor lost during the last engagement, amount of weapons/supplies carried, number of fighters aboard, number of crew aboard, etc.

For that matter, numerous things aboard Concordia, such as reserve fighters and supplies have null-grav thingamabobs attached to them.

Let us leave this topic be, and agree upon this.

The Concordia weighs a hell of a lot. And never stand in front of the PTC when there is a large charging sound in the background...
 
This topic makes me horribly angry...

1) You can quite happily convert tonnes into pounds or tons or whatever unit of weight you'd like... It just depends on what the gravitational field is at the point you want the weight at. Also, person I'm refering to here, I like how you said you couldn't do something, and then provided a figure that a website gave you after it apparantly did exactly that.

2) People need to learn to read what other people are saying, so they don't post things that make them look stupid

3) Why are you multiplying the mass by 2.2? That makes no sense at all... Everything else looks fine.

4) <pedantic> 9.81 m/s^2 is g, not G. G is something entirely different</pedantic>
 
Beyond that, ships are measured by their Displacement, not their weight - at least naval (wet) vessels are. Whether this tradition carries on into space is something else entirely, especially given that weight is a factor that only really applies in the presence of a strong gravitational presence that goes one way.

If you ever put Concordia down on ANY planetary surface, she'd not be getting up off it again. She was never meant to be put under such stresses anyways. Mass is what counts.
 
TC said:
Also, person I'm refering to here, I like how you said you couldn't do something, and then provided a figure that a website gave you after it apparantly did exactly that.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I could be of service! :p
 
TC said:
That's nice.

They're exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...

Except the displacement's for water there, which has its own specific weight and density. Hard to use that in orbit. Then again, weight's a total loss in orbit... :D

The thread's silly enough anyways.
 
Sylvester said:
I multiplied by 2.2 to convert METERS to POUNDS and because 1 newton is equivalent to .225 POUNDS
Click to expand...

GAH!

<edited to delete cursing that some may find offensive>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top