While I know the mass of 2.5 million metric tons was stated in the episode, I wonder if we should consider this an error? The Enterprise D is only about 5 million metric tons, and we see the wreckage of the scoutship on the surface of the planet, and it looks to be about the size of a runabout. How is something the size of a runabout half the mass of a Galaxy class starship? --OuroborosCobra 02:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- 2.5 metric tons seems more reasonable. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk).
- Or perhaps the vessel is truly massive, and what we saw as wreckage on the planet was only a small part of what was left of the original vessel. True, five drones does seem a small "crew", but the Borg Cube can operate with only 5000 drones and is still capable of holding about 150,000 drones.--Tiberius 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is it possible that this could be the obelisk-type vessel seen in some non-canon Trek games (e.g. Star Trek: Legacy)? 220.127.116.11 18:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- That tiny Cube could be very compressed, remember that the Galaxy Class is widely spread & sort of hollow with rooms & stations, if we squeeze the Galaxy Class to cover every inch of its hole available, than how small it'll become?
I don't think the ground under the spacecraft would support 2.5 million metric tons in that space. In addition, if they needed to use that heavy an alloy to have the strength and physical qualities the Borg need, than the Borg aren't very advanced. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm new to posting this, not sure how to sign in a name when posting. Not every state of the art alloys have to be light weighted, some may be strong but can't be made any lighter due to its nature. I wonder, what's the mass of Neutronium? --~~Auric180~~
- OK lets say "several" means 25 meters (about 82ft). It is a cube. 25mx25mx25m = 15.625 cubic meters = 15.625.000.000 cubic centimeters. 2.5 million tons are 2.500.000.000.000 gram. Thereof the material this thing is made of has a density of about 2.500.000.000.000 gram/15.625.000.000 cubic centimeters = 160 gramm per cubic centimeter, assuming the cube is solid (no holes, crew or other materials). This is about 20,35 times the density of steel (~7.86g/cm^3) and about 14 times the density of lead (11,34 g/cm^3). A bit much IMHO or I'm wrong?. If several means a bit (two to three times) more it may be OK. A more specific massdeclaration would be helpful.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk).
- Hate to say it, but the initial assessment of this entire discussion is based on faulty or unsupported information: "The Enterprise D is only about 5 million metric tons..." "...how is something the size of a runabout half the mass of a Galaxy class starship?" – maybe something more along the lines of '3.5x the mass of an Intrepid-class, or 2.5x the mass of a Constitution-class starship.' Even then, based on the debris field, can we conclusively say that that cubical section shown in our screencap is the entire ship? --Alan 23:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pieces of the ship are lifted by hand by people upon a habitable moon, so it cannot be that dense. Hugh states he was hearing thousands of voices aboard. Not billions, as would have been with the Collective, nor five. We can safely assume it's not the whole ship.Omeganian (talk) 04:44, June 29, 2017 (UTC)
- It is possible that this class is actually the Borg probe seen in Voyager
Seems to be speculation to me. --Alan 14:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Especially since the scoutship was firmly described as cubicle, and the probe in Voyager was simply not cubicle. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a "references" section which stated, "On a Borg ship we live with the thoughts of the others in our minds. Thousands of voices... with us always. (TNG: "I Borg")" Firstly, it seems speculative that this refers specifically to the Borg scout ship design of ship and that it's not a general comment referring to Borg ships collectively. Also, even if this comment is relevant to the page, it needs to be further explained and given more context. As is, it didn't state who the speaker of the quote was! --Defiant (talk) 08:37, November 2, 2017 (UTC)