Starship Size Argument™ thread

Home One is just a tad smaller than an ISD.

 

So what am I seeing inside that red circle? A reflection painted onto the hull? Come on!

It has everything to do with size! You'd fit a LOT more into a Star Destroyer than a flat blade of a saucer and chunky engineering hull with nacelles making up 1/3 of the length at the rear.

If the Enterprise is only 366m long, can you please tell me how you explain:

-The atrium behind the bridge.

If you can suggest an alternate location for this, I would very much like to hear it.

-The placement of the 40ft shuttles in the shuttle bay



The fact that everything is huge!


I love classic Trek. I've collected all the manuals and blueprints since I was a little kid. The old TV series Enterprise from 1966 is 289m long. The old movie Enterprise from 1979 is 305m long. New people are running Star Trek now, and their version of the ship (from an alternate reality, no less) is 725m long. Why? Because they made it that big, and nothing would fit inside if it were any smaller. The Vengeance, as we see throughout Into Darkness, is twice the length.

 

No, because your argument still consists of comparing two different windows of different sizes on different ships in different universes shot from different angles. You can draw a happy face on it and say pretty please too, it's not going to overcome the inherent weakness of the argument.

Comparing your scribble to the level of evidence King Daniel and others have presented is ludicrous. Plus, he doesn't have the uphill battle of stubbornly and overzealously competing against what the production designers, CGI artists, filmmakers, and onscreen evidence says about the ships, so why would you expect that anyone would argue with him about it?

I'm not going to argue with you any more unless you present some detailed evidence to support your point of view, and I would suggest everyone else just do the same. It's obvious that you have nothing significant to add to the debate and that you're simply going to be the latest iteration of the tireless rebutters who have beaten this subject to death before with little to show in the way evidence. It's a four year old argument that feels like it's twice that age and still nothing new has even come close to suggesting that the ships are as small as you say they are.

You're free to carry on, but I would drop the attitude toward others if you want to continue.

 

Why don't you guys just compare the size of the Vengeance against the city (especially Alcatraz) and then compare the size of the Enterprise against the Vengeance using this?

 

You have got to be kidding.

No you don't. Furthermore, we were talking about Enterprise, for which there is much more size-related evidence.

And here's your problem: you try to argue for a certain size, but when other people have better arguments, suddenly arguments don't matter because it's fiction. If it doesn't matter, why are you even here ?

I'm going to miss you.

 

So this big ship, has this bridge window, and you believe without hesitation that it's over 1200 meters long.

So this big ship has an identical bridge window and you believe it's 300 meters long.

James, do you realize how strange that seems to the rest of us? Especially considering that the shuttlebay of the new Enterprise is easily comparable to the hangar and flight deck of a modern aircraft carrier ALL BY ITSELF?

Let's do a real world comparison.

Here is the USS Enterprise next to Alcatraz Island (342 meters long). Well, actually the Carl Vinson, but she's a dead ringer for our purposes...



Here is USS Vengenace next to Alcatraz Island


It's not even close.

 

No one's going to get in trouble because they made fun of the fact that I used a Mace Windu pic. I just ignored it because like most of the other stuff he's posted, he missed the point completely.

 

The Carl Vinson would fit inside the Vengeance's engineering hull with room to spare.

The Vengeance is so overpowered it has aircraft carriers as shuttlecraft.

 

Awesome comparison, Crazy Eddie!

 

Two shuttles passing over the Enterprise's saucer. Given that the shuttles are closer to the viewer than the saucer, the saucer is fucking huge, way bigger than the TOS Enterprise.

 

I've never understood the complaining about the larger sizes.

- She looks like Kirk's Enterprise from TOS -- arguably better depending on personal preferences
- She does the same things; she has phasers, photons, transporters and warp
- the added size can be better in regards to adding new capabilities down the line (imagine this becoming a show after the movies run?)
- the size scales up just fine
- Star Trek itself has done this about a zillion times before, so it's actually expected for things to change size. :P Must be due to their mass lightening technology. :P

Now, you have Vengeance.

Enterprise and her ships technically sucked bad when facing Narada -- Narada was defeated by outwitting her, much like how most of Trek goes for the Federation.

Enter a bigger ship, which hopefully may not suck as much if another threat like Narada comes alone. No one really wants their planet sucked into a black hole after all. Which Earth was on its way to becoming, except for future tech in the form of Jellyfish, which they lost and have no way of recovering.

 

I just want to say thank you to King Daniel and everyone else who contributed all that analysis and information on the reboot Enterprise being over 700m. Honestly, you have improved my viewing experience of the new films.

Back in 2009, some people arguing that the Enterprise was inconsistently scaled really ruined my enjoyment of the movies. I bought into the idea that the Enterprise really was 300m and was purposely scaled inconsistently during the shuttlebay and engineering scenes because the filmmakers were too lazy to obey the size restrictions and simply wanted a larger interior. This destroyed my suspension of disbelief because I couldn't believe that that massive shuttlebay and engineering section could fit inside a 300m ship and I got distracted watching those scenes. Unfortunately, I was convinced by the argument that it was 300m.

Now, with incontrovertible evidence that it IS 700m after all, and with diagrams showing how the interiors could fit in nicely, I am much more comfortable watching and loving the ship. So, thank you very much.

 

See? We made a difference! Good job everybody!

 

Happy to have been of help!

 

So to recap:
TOS Enterprise is about 300m
Reboot Enterprise is about 725m

 

And Vengeance is about 1400m, that's essentially all there is to the topic and the last 1000 pages or whatever it's been.

 

Big Bootie Bitchships.

 

Does that make the Enterprise/Vengeance fight a catfight in space?

 

Lets toss some gasoline on this fire

Truth is there is no way that the big E can be any less than 900-1100 meters in length based on the size of the shuttle bay, budgeneering and all the other mammoth sets that couldn't fit into a 725 meter spaceframe

In fact it was supposed to be 1100 meters

Dan did a fabulous write up that showed how everything actually gels with that size a couple years ago

I say it's 1100 meters and not a farthing less

Galactica Schmaltica. E is the biggest bi#ch in space

 

DON'T YOU DARE.