Studies: Volume to ship mass ratios

[Rod-Serling]

Interesting thread. I just want to point out that Carriers also have huge internal hangar bays that distort their density.

For example, the USS Harry S Truman has 3 internal hangar bays, here's a picture of one of them.

[sloanjh]

With the internal armor, do you mean just the practice of building in a bulkhead compartment scheme? I read that became modern relatively late in western war ships, despite chinese ships employing this with wood since ancient times. In that case this shouldn't change too much, because it is more about floodgates and structural integrity other than actually stopping blasts.
If not, and there ware serious walls of armor internally, then how much are we speaking about? Is it comparable to the former outside armor just being scrapped and re-erected inside?

No not just addition of bulkheads.  On thickness, my understanding is that the walls are thicker around sensitive compartments, but not e.g. 18 inches of steel.

I googled for "naval Kevlar armor" and picked up an excerpt from "The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet" by Normal Polmar talking about Arleigh Burke class DDGs.  He says they're the first pos-WWII US destroyers with steel superstructures (due to Belknap and NOT due to Sheffield's loss in Falklands) and that they have "130 tons of Kevlar armor plating to protect vital spaces".

My recollection is that it's to help protect against fragmentation damage after a bomb's exploded (outside the compartment), rather than trying to keep a bomb from entering a compartment altogether.

I think I also remember a story about one of the frigates in the Falklands campaign having a gravity bomb pass entirely through the stern of the ship without exploding.  My recollection is that it was thought that the fuse didn't have enough time to arm due to the pilot dropping too close.  I also have a vague recollection that something was said about if the ship had been more heavily armored it would have been a problem because the bomb wouldn't have just punched through.  This might have been in the British admiral's (Sandy Woodward) book "100 Days".  Don't give high confidence to this bit - it's really very vague recollections.

John

[Paul M]

The comment on armour comes from a book on modern naval tactics...have to look up the proper name and author later.  Basically in the 60s the assumption was that any ship hit by a missile would sink, so they didn't build ships to suvive what was considered unsurvivable in the first place, but then after seeing it was not so went back to making survivability (or armour) a factor of the design.  They use modern armour (kevlar and composits) and don't armour the ship as if against shells since that isn't the threat so they lack an armour belt but rather have armoured compartments and so forth.  Also missiles use HE warheads rather than AP ones (outside of the KE of the missile) so that is also different.

As for a bomb going through a ship and exploding...uhm...well lets just say that is bad.  It can break the back of the ship in question depending on the size of the explosion and so on.   But that was also true of WW2 tin cans.  They were also largely unarmoured.   Only DDs in WW2 were largely expendable...modern ships cost too much to catagorize them as expendable.

When I say that the crew spaces define the volume I mean just that.  People take space, much more space then wiring or solid engines.  You need a central corridor of some sort from bow to stern to allow movement of the crew.  On a surface ship that is called the top deck and it is not enclosed so it isn't an issue.  In a space ship you need to enclose it...that means a 2.5 m high, 2.5 m wide and x m long square corridor.  Each person needs a bunk, space to eat, space to void by products of eating, life support systems to keep them alive and all the rest.  If you look a modern submarine you see that a lot of the internal space is occupied by "space" for crews.  If my memory of the Polaris class submarine I built as a teen ager is accurate about 20-30% of the internal volume was space for people to live or work.  And a space craft has a lot more need for things like food storage, air storage, air processing and water processing facilities to keep its crew alive.  This is volume intensive (but not particularily mass intensive) so probably in my view defines the volume of the ship.  This has nothing to do with the rules, which are just some numbers Steve threw together from whatever.

My comment on mass in a surface ship is simple.  Surface ships are designed on the basis of fairly complex hydronamic factors determined by the speed you wish to achieve and the overall mass of the ship in question plus a host of other considerations.  Warships are built around their turrets in WW2 terms as well.  These in general defines beam, speed desired defines length compared to beam etc  BUT the ship has to float that means a density of less than 1.  So the trick is to expand the volume occupied by things to reduce the density.  So a turbine power plant which is massive is set into a large mostly empty room.  In a space ship the large massive engine is set into a room that is just big enough to support maintenance and has no requirement to be big enough to reduce the density of the ship to something that is accepable from a "not floating like a brick" point of view.  Surface ships are limited by that constraint in terms of their mass...space ships are not.  This means the density of a space ship will tend to be high in most cases where the density of a surface ship has to be low or else the damn thing plays brick.  It is not really believable that a space ship would have a density of 1 or less.  If you want to use a ship to compare to...use a submarine as they are closer to a space ship in terms of constraints then a surface ship.  Also they are largely just a cylinder so you get better their dimensions with simple mathematics.

I unfortunately do not have any naval references, my friend who is at the moment well nigh unreachable by email has such things.  He is the naval nut...I'm more into ground or air stuff. 

[Rod-Serling]

You need a central corridor of some sort from bow to stern to allow movement of the crew.  On a surface ship that is called the top deck and it is not enclosed so it isn't an issue.

No. People need to be able to get from their berthing to the mess decks and to the shop even during a hurricane or when we're launching tomahawk missiles. Central (enclosed) corridors are required for all ships.

[MarcAFK]

Can't they just use the Jeffries tubes?

[Ostia]

Can't they just use the Jeffries tubes?

Jefferies tube (Memory Alpha spelling) are maintenance access points. people only crawl through those when the the more convenient turbo lifts are down or they are going SpecOps. And remember those are one-man crawl spaces. not wide corridors, so you are slow as hell when using them.

[MarcAFK]

Exactly, when crew need to perform routine maintenance such as fulfilling their nutritional requirements they take a Jefferies pneumatic tube down to the feeding nipple organ.

[boggo2300]

Jefferies tube (Memory Alpha spelling)

That's the spelling,  this is why

The term "Jefferies tube" was originally an inside joke among the original Star Trek production staff, a reference to Original Series art director Matt Jefferies.

Just be thankful it was a TOS invention, otherwise it'd be something like the Okuda Orifice!

[Haji]

As the thread is rather long, I only skimmed it. However it seems that very little has been said over whether or not comparison to naval ships even makes sense. As such here are my thoughts on that part.

First and foremost ships in Aurora are made in large part (or even in majority) of TN elements, which can be as dense as you please. As such you can easily use this to justify whether volume to mass ratio you want.
Second, both mass and size impacts how a ship maneuvers. Also the larger the ship the more armor you need. Ergo it would stand to reason that ships would be made as small as possible.
Third Aurora ships usually dedicate twenty to thirty percent of it's tonnage to engines, which seems to include power generation. Depending on technology used those can be very dense (nuclear reactor) or just the opposite if they are fusion reactors with large, open, central chamber where the reaction is going on. That will hugely impact the volume to mass ratio, as said engines are likely to be a mess of heavy machinery with little to no open spaces. Fusion reactors may be an exception, but it really depends on the design used.
And last but not least, in real life mass is a very important consideration when launching stuff into space. In addition Aurora takes place in the future (usually) where very strong but light materials may be available, like carbon nanotubes for example. Those may completely replace current materials used, making ships strong but light.

Overall considering the differences in building priorities (large engines) and the differences of materials (TN elements, futuristic alloys) I don't really think using naval ships as a basis has any use. Overall I'd say, at a hunch, that any space warship, especially one made from TN elements, would be much more heavy for a given volume than any sea going vessel.

[Vandermeer (OP)]

Interesting thread. I just want to point out that Carriers also have huge internal hangar bays that distort their density.

For example, the USS Harry S Truman has 3 internal hangar bays, here's a picture of one of them.

It doesn't matter for the values that have been determined, as the volume and consequent calculation of density already span over those internal hangars. It might be a point that it could be unfair to include carriers into the calculation of the average V/M, as ships with such large empty internal areas might water down this ratio. Yet, as baffling as it is, these carriers turned out to even have greater density than the other ships for some reason. ...Maybe because their volume calculation was more tricky and a lot more eye-judgement based. I took them out of the calculation though to test how it would impact the average V/M, and the difference is negligible. Might as well keep them enlisted.

No not just addition of bulkheads.  On thickness, my understanding is that the walls are thicker around sensitive compartments, but not e.g. 18 inches of steel.

I googled for "naval Kevlar armor" and picked up an excerpt from "The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet" by Normal Polmar talking about Arleigh Burke class DDGs.  He says they're the first pos-WWII US destroyers with steel superstructures (due to Belknap and NOT due to Sheffield's loss in Falklands) and that they have "130 tons of Kevlar armor plating to protect vital spaces".

My recollection is that it's to help protect against fragmentation damage after a bomb's exploded (outside the compartment), rather than trying to keep a bomb from entering a compartment altogether.

130 tons sounds reasonable, especially for Kevlar. Would that have been steel, we would already deal with nearly 800 tons. Well, I guess I will scrap that idea with the armor weight correction. Of course this will still impact as soon as multiple layers are added, but the starting point seems now equal in weight to me.

When I say that the crew spaces define the volume I mean just that.  People take space, much more space then wiring or solid engines.  You need a central corridor of some sort from bow to stern to allow movement of the crew.  On a surface ship that is called the top deck and it is not enclosed so it isn't an issue.  In a space ship you need to enclose it...that means a 2.5 m high, 2.5 m wide and x m long square corridor.  Each person needs a bunk, space to eat, space to void by products of eating, life support systems to keep them alive and all the rest.  If you look a modern submarine you see that a lot of the internal space is occupied by "space" for crews.  If my memory of the Polaris class submarine I built as a teen ager is accurate about 20-30% of the internal volume was space for people to live or work.  And a space craft has a lot more need for things like food storage, air storage, air processing and water processing facilities to keep its crew alive.  This is volume intensive (but not particularily mass intensive) so probably in my view defines the volume of the ship.  This has nothing to do with the rules, which are just some numbers Steve threw together from whatever.

My comment on mass in a surface ship is simple.  Surface ships are designed on the basis of fairly complex hydronamic factors determined by the speed you wish to achieve and the overall mass of the ship in question plus a host of other considerations.  Warships are built around their turrets in WW2 terms as well.  These in general defines beam, speed desired defines length compared to beam etc  BUT the ship has to float that means a density of less than 1.  So the trick is to expand the volume occupied by things to reduce the density.  So a turbine power plant which is massive is set into a large mostly empty room.  In a space ship the large massive engine is set into a room that is just big enough to support maintenance and has no requirement to be big enough to reduce the density of the ship to something that is accepable from a "not floating like a brick" point of view.  Surface ships are limited by that constraint in terms of their mass...space ships are not.  This means the density of a space ship will tend to be high in most cases where the density of a surface ship has to be low or else the damn thing plays brick.  It is not really believable that a space ship would have a density of 1 or less.  If you want to use a ship to compare to...use a submarine as they are closer to a space ship in terms of constraints then a surface ship.  Also they are largely just a cylinder so you get better their dimensions with simple mathematics.

Those are good reasons, and they pull in both directions. 1. Spaceships should be more dense because there is no reason to have extra empty halls for floating purposes. And 2., Spaceships should be less dense, because extended requirements of survival support is far greater in space, hence inflating "crew quarter".
The first point could have a weakness though I think, because as it can be seen on the table, density of ships is already between 0.2-0.3 t/m³, so far below that of water in any case. However, I know nothing about hydrodynamics, so maybe it is actually needed to stay in that region already, or maybe the shape dictates more than density at some point too.

Anyway, again, the reason why I stay close to the naval ships in the first place, is because those ships that Aurora generates come out with specs close to the naval ones. If the crew numbers add up for the same tonnage, then the designs can't be too different in structure. Plus it is very suspicious that the Aurora ships on top of that follow the same tonnage sizing doctrine as the naval ones, with destroyers between 5-8k, and cruisers twice to three times that.
I will provide some test designs lower that show the crew thing a bit.

First and foremost ships in Aurora are made in large part (or even in majority) of TN elements, which can be as dense as you please. As such you can easily use this to justify whether volume to mass ratio you want.

Hmm, "large parts" is definitely stretching it.
Some examples I can bring:
- TL1 7k destroyer(from below), 500t TN minerals,
- TL1 24k cruiser, ~2k TN
- TL1 100k carrier, 11k TN
- TL7 20k destroyer, 5k TN
- TL7 300k cruiser, 50k TN

Obviously the ratio increases with rising technology, but still it never makes up the majority of elements. Sure, even that smaller ratio could be so inflated or dense that it seriously skews any numbers, but...

Second, both mass and size impacts how a ship maneuvers. Also the larger the ship the more armor you need. Ergo it would stand to reason that ships would be made as small as possible.

We had that before. Simply said: No, mass does in Aurora not affect maneuvering at all. The ancient TN magic excavated from sunken R'lyeh ensures that any ship or fighter can in a mere 5 second interval turn 180° and reach astonishing full velocities of up to 99.66..%c. Either you say that is because in the new TN age, it is not a matter of moving through space, but move space itself (or maybe through some in comparison really slippery bulk plane loophole instead), or acceleration is now just so easily available, that heaviness of equipment really does literally account for nothing anymore.
I prefer to see at least some interpretation of the first explanation (and the 'official' one suggested one too), because it avoids a lot of questions that the second method would generate, such as if you have so much energy to generate all that acceleration, then why are weapons still so underpowered? Just explode an engine. Or why there is a speed limit. Or no effects of relativity - Evidence: officers in flight on fast ships don't age slower.
You just have to assume new physics for all that to really add up. Any suggestion based on mass interfering with maneuver is therefore bare speculation or personalized interpretation. For this thread here, we can only take the (very few) tangible things into consideration, and some bright colored yet unprovable hints too if you will.

Naval ship comparison is based on similar crew data on certain sizes, then (somewhat weaker) similar component massing on sizes, the hints with the mass classification parallels (destroyer, cruiser, carrier) currently, and, new on the list, even the similarities of basic (1 layer conventional) armor weight.
I think so far this is the best hunch we get, so I try to figure out what things would be like, if it really was comparable like this. However, I understand this can be resented, and I am certainly not going to try to convince anyone to accept this as some canon calculation.

Ideally I am only going to use any results to describe ships that look kind of compact (similar to naval again), such as these:




This is a design type that should fit pretty much all purposes which I would need these calculations for. Larger lightweight designs, and those with maybe open gyro flywheels, large but light reactors, or massive solar panels etc. are not covered by this of course, but then again nobody could simply derive a rule under which falls all science fiction designs ever created... .
(smaller is btw. here only in bounds possible, because we still have the crew count as fact, and that gives a minimum size no matter the era of miniaturization and heaviness of TN minerals)

So if we go with the premise that ships should look like this above, I think all this here is justified pretty much. In this context I think it also weakens the claim that TN elements would greatly distract any measurements, because that would also cause the mentioned parallels with naval to disappear.

To finally provide some data to these parallels (aside from the surprising armor weight one) I created 3 designs of TL1 mostly (jump engines are TL5 though) to visualize the crewing similarities, which are in my opinion the strongest supporter.
Destroyer

Off-Topic: show

Waning Destiny class Destroyer    7,000 tons     194 Crew     478.4 BP      TCS 140  TH 14  EM 30
100 km/s    JR 1-50     Armour 1-32     Shields 1-300     Sensors 5/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 21.9
Maint Life 2.24 Years     MSP 85    AFR 196%    IFR 2.7%    1YR 23    5YR 343    Max Repair 70 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 2   
Magazine 110   

Looted Alienware's 7kt Passway Military Jump Ringlet     Max Ship Size 7000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 1
Rembauchy Navigator Guild 14.4 EP Flood Engine (1)    Power 14.4    Fuel Use 128.97%    Signature 14.4    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 190,000 Litres    Range 3.8 billion km   (438 days at full power)
Princeton's School Projects Ice Nebula Screen Emitter (1)   Total Fuel Cost  9 Litres per hour  (216 per day)

Charity League Short Circuit Pattern Broadside Cannon (10)    Range 10,000km     TS: 2000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 1    ROF 5        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hammer Industries Puff the Magic Dragon (cal. 10 10k r10) (1x4)    Range 10,000km     TS: 2000 km/s     Power 3-2     RM 1    ROF 10        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lancer Tarot's Tactical Superstition Augury Bot (30k 8kps) (1)    Max Range: 60,000 km   TS: 8000 km/s     83 67 50 33 17 0 0 0 0 0
Isis' Sunstone Nuclear Battery (2)     Total Power Output 2    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Flare Tube Pack Segment (20)    Missile Size 1    Hangar Reload 7.5 minutes    MF Reload 1.2 hours
Bishop Lancaster XLMA Interplanetary Missile Launcher (5)    Missile Size 6    Rate of Fire 3600
Jacobi Gears 21st Century Crosshair (110m 5.5k) (1)     Range 110.1m km    Resolution 110
Lancer Tarot's Shield of Faith Grade Flare Guidance (1)     Range 3.0m km    Resolution 1
Size 6 "Heartcatcher" Long Cruise Missile (15)  Speed: 300 km/s   End: 4.1d    Range: 105.6m km   WH: 5    Size: 6    TH: 1/0/0
Size 1 "Gendarme" AMF (20)  Speed: 300 km/s   End: 125m    Range: 2.3m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 1/0/0

Lancer Tarot's Omen Interpretation Device (54k) (1)     GPS 10     Range 500k km    MCR 55k km    Resolution 1
Lancer Tarot's Astral Projection Sensoring (5.24m 5.5k) (1)     GPS 1100     Range 5.2m km    Resolution 110
Ant Farm's Sugar Tracer - TH5 (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  5m km

194 Crew, whereas the naval average on  that size would roughly be 280. However, we see designs like the "Horizon" class which have 174 on 7050 tons, and crew size could go up a bit on later tech levels with increasing component complexity.

Cruiser

Off-Topic: show

Ambitious Sails class Cruiser    24,000 tons     625 Crew     2127.2 BP      TCS 480  TH 22  EM 120
45 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 1-74     Shields 4-300     Sensors 100/5/0/0     Damage Control Rating 15     PPV 46.32
Maint Life 2.43 Years     MSP 831    AFR 307%    IFR 4.3%    1YR 194    5YR 2913    Max Repair 266 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Flight Crew Berths 16   
Flag Bridge    Hangar Deck Capacity 1000 tons     Magazine 80   

Looted Alienware's 24kt Portalis Staged Jump Peristaltic     Max Ship Size 24000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
Rembauchy Navigator Guild 7.5 EP Cruise Engine (3)    Power 7.5    Fuel Use 21.92%    Signature 7.5    Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 660,000 Litres    Range 22.2 billion km   (5702 days at full power)
Princeton's School Projects Ice Nebula Screen Emitter (4)   Total Fuel Cost  36 Litres per hour  (864 per day)

Only Reyleigh - Laser Based LR CIWS (1x4)    Range 30,000km     TS: 8000 km/s     Power 12-8     RM 1    ROF 10        3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Abel and Reyleigh Melting Overhead Projector (3 30k r10) (6)    Range 30,000km     TS: 2000 km/s     Power 3-2     RM 1    ROF 10        3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Connor's Workshop 2-shot roulette last resort vehicle (1x2)    Range 1000 km     TS: 8000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Lancer Tarot's Tactical Superstition Augury Bot (30k 8kps) (1)    Max Range: 60,000 km   TS: 8000 km/s     83 67 50 33 17 0 0 0 0 0
Cloud Center's Radiation Tamer Large Nuclear Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 20    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Flare Tube Pack Segment (80)    Missile Size 1    Hangar Reload 7.5 minutes    MF Reload 1.2 hours
Jacobi Gear's Virtuoso Triangulator (2.6m) (1)     Range 24.0m km    Resolution 1
Size 1 "Gendarme" AMF (80)  Speed: 300 km/s   End: 125m    Range: 2.3m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 1/0/0

Necessary Science Fund's Mark19 Avionic 50MW Overseer (1)     GPS 22000     Range 104.9m km    Resolution 110
Necessary Science Fund's Early Bird permanent Coverage (1)     GPS 200     Range 10.0m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
Ant Farm's Known Streets - TH100 (1)     Sensitivity 100     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  100m km
Ant Farm's Psychic Member - EM5 (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  5m km

Since Cruisers aren't used so much anymore, I had only drawn 3 designs, which isn't exactly a reliable statistic source. However, the 625 man on 24k seems to be completely in line with the 655 on the 25.8kt russian "Kirow" class at least.

Carrier

Off-Topic: show

Northern Council class Carrier    100,000 tons     2513 Crew     11081.4 BP      TCS 2000  TH 90  EM 480
45 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 1-191     Shields 16-300     Sensors 5/100/0/0     Damage Control Rating 185     PPV 114.24
Maint Life 3.42 Years     MSP 12814    AFR 432%    IFR 6%    1YR 1672    5YR 25076    Max Repair 3466 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Flight Crew Berths 319   
Flag Bridge    Hangar Deck Capacity 16000 tons     Magazine 840   

Looted Alienware's 100kt Stable Bubble Jump Curiosity     Max Ship Size 100000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
Rembauchy Navigator Guild 7.5 EP Cruise Engine (12)    Power 7.5    Fuel Use 21.92%    Signature 7.5    Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 5,000,000 Litres    Range 41.1 billion km   (10560 days at full power)
Princeton's School Projects Ice Nebula Screen Emitter (16)   Total Fuel Cost  144 Litres per hour  (3,456 per day)

Only Reyleigh - Laser Based LR CIWS (2x4)    Range 30,000km     TS: 8000 km/s     Power 12-8     RM 1    ROF 10        3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Charity League Short Circuit Pattern Broadside Cannon (10)    Range 10,000km     TS: 2000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 1    ROF 5        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Connor's Workshop 2-shot roulette last resort vehicle (1x2)    Range 1000 km     TS: 8000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Hammer Industries Puff the Magic Dragon (cal. 10 10k r10) (6x4)    Range 10,000km     TS: 2000 km/s     Power 3-2     RM 1    ROF 10        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lancer Tarot's Tactical Superstition Augury Bot (30k 8kps) (1)    Max Range: 60,000 km   TS: 8000 km/s     83 67 50 33 17 0 0 0 0 0
Cloud Center's Shielded Shine Small Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 8    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Cloud Center's Radiation Tamer Large Nuclear Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 20    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Flare Tube Pack Segment (120)    Missile Size 1    Hangar Reload 7.5 minutes    MF Reload 1.2 hours
Bishop Lancaster XLMA Interplanetary Missile Launcher (20)    Missile Size 6    Rate of Fire 3600
Jacobi Gears 21st Century Crosshair (110m 5.5k) (1)     Range 110.1m km    Resolution 110
Jacobi Gear's Virtuoso Triangulator (2.6m) (1)     Range 24.0m km    Resolution 1
Size 6 "Heartcatcher" Long Cruise Missile (100)  Speed: 300 km/s   End: 4.1d    Range: 105.6m km   WH: 5    Size: 6    TH: 1/0/0
Size 1 "Gendarme" AMF (240)  Speed: 300 km/s   End: 125m    Range: 2.3m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 1/0/0

Necessary Science Fund's Early Bird permanent Coverage (1)     GPS 200     Range 10.0m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
Singing Gears' Locktide Gravitation Sieve (1)     GPS 7500     Range 96.8m km    Resolution 15
Ant Farm's Sugar Tracer - TH5 (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  5m km
Singing Gears' EM Echo Tracer - EM100 (1)     Sensitivity 100     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  100m km

If you compare this one with either Nimitz, Enterprise or Ford class, it indeed falls short by amazing 50% roughly. The crew numbers seem to greatly differ on carriers though (again, maybe carriers shouldn't be included at all in this due to all the differences to classic shipbuilding). When compared to the 70% sized Queen Elizabeth or the Admiral Kuznetsov, then crew size is exactly on spot again. (upsized Elizabeth would be 2266, and upsized Kuznetsov 2503 members)

I got similar matches with my actual game designs of TL6 and TL7 (20k destroyer: 480man, 300kt cruiser: 8000man, so around 25 tons per man; nearly identical to the calculated value in the naval table...), so this indeed means that Aurora ships of identical tonnage also have similar crew count. Here is exactly where I base this whole comparison on.

And last but not least, in real life mass is a very important consideration when launching stuff into space. In addition Aurora takes place in the future (usually) where very strong but light materials may be available, like carbon nanotubes for example. Those may completely replace current materials used, making ships strong but light.

It is very vague what a shipyard in Aurora actually is. It could be ground based, and needing to care about launch fuel, but it could also be orbital. I would argue it is more likely orbital, as shipyards can be destroyed by weaponry that usually wouldn't pierce the atmosphere of any planet. Even if not however, who says that all the old expensive launching methods still apply? This is TN age, where either space moves itself without concern for gravitational potential bonds pretty much. Or otherwise extreme acceleration can be generated and release of equivalently gigantic energy is a minor task.
The conclusion that ships need to be strong but light, just because they have to be carried from ground into space thus doesn't really add up for me here.
It is generally a good idea to have strong but light ships for other reasons though: 1. Detection is mass based, so less for a given volume still means stealthy, even if make a huge paper balloon. 2. Jumping is also mass based, so less means cheaper engines (unless you rely on gates).


---
Finally I want to say that I will now also look into other games and see how they weighted their ships on certain sizes if given. Also drawing armor weight if possible should be interesting. Currently I wanna look into Space Engineers and the SolarWar game that I remembered recently. If anyone knows more sources where people were interested in creating scientifically ambitious data, I am open to suggestions.

[Vandermeer (OP)]

Ok, so these other sources turned out insufficient so far.
Solar War: Seems really scientific at first, because ships care about adequate heat dissipation even, and warp travel around the solar system is calculated with rotation impulse and gravitational potential in mind.(direct course is the worst way, and optimal often one around 120-180° on the other side of the system) On first sight the armor weight calculation seemed to be nice too with 750t armor for a 7.2kt destroyer and 2.4cm steel thickness, - very similar to what I found. ...But as it turns out it is completely ignorant of that dimensional scaling law that Aurora nicely incorporated. For example, the identical 2.4cm armor 28.5kt cruiser is 4 times the mass, which means the armor should only be 2.5 times as heavy, but it is instead 3kts, so times 4 too. Data cannot be used.
Space Engineers: This game seems so scientific with all the gadgets and functionality that you basically have to invent yourself, and also the realistic thrust calculation. So I thought maybe their weight calculation - very important to newtonian thrust one might recall - would be on excellence standard. Well, not saying it is wrong, but it is definitely not in line with what you would expect from realistic shipbuilding, because it seems all these 2.5m sided cube blocks are considered filled with material. There is literally no way to have less than 2500mm armor. Just one block of heavy armor is 125 tons of steel probably. It seemed to work well when I replicated an Astroempire Fighter and Bomber, who came about as heavy as I calculated (25-50 and 45-90tons), but large ships, ridiculous. I tried to build a 300m long freighter, and when I just had build the spine (light armor block chain of 80), two massive engines, and the frontal blast shield of one layer heavy armor... it was already at 22 megatons... . Yeah, next.
Galactic Civilizations III: I didn't actually look for this one intentionally, but when browsing through fleet menus I found that singular ships display data of diameter and mass! Oh joy, a new potential source. The first one I calculated was one relatively cuboid human battlecruiser from the campaign, who had 70x74x281m diameters, which I estimated (using the first post method) as 770km³ Volume, and which weighted 175kt. Factor is 4.416, amazingly close to this list recherche!
..A lucky first hit. Most other designs jump around on the scale, and they didn't actually care of using exact density variables. I don't blame them, because that would of course be an usually unnoticeable detail. Just disappointed because I could find no other source.

So if I don't surprisingly find anything else, I will stop this here and take the 4.5m³/t.