RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,143
Posts: 5,401,952
Members: 24,748
Currently online: 448
Newest member: ChrisCrash

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 18 2009, 04:32 AM   #46
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2009, 04:44 AM   #47
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

Praetor wrote: View Post
Which pretty much sums up my feeling about this movie as well...

Remember... "Bigger iz Kewler."

Pretty much proves that the guys who did this movie, or at least the guy at the top (and those he listened to, and thus didn't fire or "block out" of the decision-making process) didn't really care about this being "Star Trek." It was supposed to be BETTER than "Star Trek," which apparently "didn't have that feel" they were looking for.

"A grander feel?" Give me a @#$*ing BREAK...
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2009, 04:45 AM   #48
DiSiLLUSiON
Commodore
 
DiSiLLUSiON's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

Does it matter if they bumped it up or not? The final scale used is what matters, I'd think; you don't know in what stage it was bumped up. Could be with it was still a concept and no details were finalized. They did say the new size allowed them to add a lot more details, so it probably didn't have much.

Besides, logic points out that a 300-somewhat meter ship is horribly impractical. I think the original Enterprise is about 700 meters as well, it makes a whole lot more sense. Perhaps slightly less then 700m, due to the smaller and less finely crafted nacelles.

A shuttlebay like this:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/marc1...yCeiling-1.jpg
is a whole lot more practical then what we saw in the series. Not to mention the budget restraints the series had. So the original Enterprise (+ refit) was probably already supposed to be around 700m long.

By the time of the Ent-D and Voyager, continuous use of transporters might have made using a shuttle all the time out of favor. Add the industrial strength replicators and they don't need all that storage space either. So by that time the vessels don't have to be that large.

So essentially, the new Enterprise isn't scaled up at all; the old enterprise was scaled down due to budgetary reasons. Works for me.
DiSiLLUSiON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2009, 05:14 AM   #49
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

I am willing (*gasp*) to entertain the notion that the TOS ship, the refit, the Excelsior, and about any other ship that used parts of them was "really" a lot bigger than we've come to accept over the past forty years, even over the clearly defined intentions of those ships' creators to pin them down at sizes specifically smaller than this new ship.

But I still don't feel good about it.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2009, 05:33 PM   #50
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

DiSiLLUSiON wrote: View Post
Does it matter if they bumped it up or not? The final scale used is what matters, I'd think; you don't know in what stage it was bumped up. Could be with it was still a concept and no details were finalized. They did say the new size allowed them to add a lot more details, so it probably didn't have much.
Unlikely... when you consider that the details we see are TMP-type details (ie, they were visually very similar on the TMP ship but at a smaller scale.)

Increasing scale doesn't have ANYTHING to do with how detailed the model is. In fact, if you're thinking practically... well... think about what a skyscraper, for example, looks like from a distance. It's only when you get up-close that the little details become visible. From a distance, it looks very smooth. (Same thing with any large object... but I'm using the "skyscraper" analogy because most of us have seen this with our own eyes.)
Besides, logic points out that a 300-somewhat meter ship is horribly impractical. I think the original Enterprise is about 700 meters as well, it makes a whole lot more sense. Perhaps slightly less then 700m, due to the smaller and less finely crafted nacelles.
"Logic" points out nothing of the sort. And I see no reason to think that it's "horribly impractical."

A ship should be the size it's required to be in order to do its job... no larger, no smaller. It should be the size required to carry the crew, equipment, and payload, within a reasonable mechanical structure.

So, which of those specific requirements cannot possibly be met by a ship that's essentially the size of a modern aircraft carrier (as the TOS Enterprise is)?

If you want massive luxury apartments for every crewmember... if you're turning the ship into the freakin' "Flying Condo-Prise"... you may be able to justify that it needs to be a LITTLE larger... no more than 25% increase... but going from 300m to over 1000m? That's just SILLY, showing LITERALLY no further thought behind it than "Doood, Bigger Is Kewler! It iz Teh Awsome!"
A shuttlebay like this:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/marc1...yCeiling-1.jpg
is a whole lot more practical then what we saw in the series. Not to mention the budget restraints the series had. So the original Enterprise (+ refit) was probably already supposed to be around 700m long.
I suspect that the guy who did that design you just showed... which is NOT "the shuttlebay" but is the CARGO DECK (albeit adjoining the "shuttle bay") by the way... and who designed it to fit into a specific size of ship... would argue that point. Andrew's version of the ship was exactly 1000' in length, or just over 300m, as memory serves. If you were to more than double the "refit" size, you'd be ELIMINATING all the logic he put into that design... it might "look kewl" but it would no longer make any practical sense.

Here is what you just showed a picture of, in relation to the 1000' Enterprise from TMP:

http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/CargoBay-3.html
By the time of the Ent-D and Voyager, continuous use of transporters might have made using a shuttle all the time out of favor. Add the industrial strength replicators and they don't need all that storage space either. So by that time the vessels don't have to be that large.
Um... except that this only seems to make sense if you never watched TOS or TNG and are ignoring onscreen evidence to the contrary.

Shuttles were used at least as often during TNG as they were during TOS. Transporters were used at least as often on TOS as they were on TNG. While the term "replicators" was never used in TOS, there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to support the idea that they were using that, even if potentially in a less refined manner.

And "storage" is still an issue for the TNG-era ships. Or did you not notice just how often we were shown "cargo bays" in the TNG era, versus how often we were shown them during the TOS era?
So essentially, the new Enterprise isn't scaled up at all; the old enterprise was scaled down due to budgetary reasons. Works for me.
Does it also work for you to revise other things, after the fact, to match "new facts?" Sounds remarkably Orwellian to me.

"Hmmm... I don't like this historical fact, so I'll come up with my own personal version of history that better matches what I want to believe." Yikes...

There is absolutely NO logical argument for the TOS Enterprise design having been "scaled down" by the issues of production cost during the original series. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. They could just as easily have designed their MODEL to represent a much larger vessel. But that's not what happened. Matt Jefferies designed a ship that he thought was the right size for what the mission was. In fact (at a time well before the show went on the air, and well before the time that they built the 11' miniature) they UPSIZED the ship... and they revised the design. MJ laid in decks into his design, he established the size... and NONE of that was "driven by Desilu budget constraints."

If anything, a bigger ship makes for a CHEAPER production, since you can justify fitting any shape or size of room (hell, even the production floor of a freakin BREWERY!!!) into a big enough space. With a more reasonably ship size, on the other hand, you have to actually figure out where things go and why, and make the sets match the model.

The TOS ship, and the TMP ship, were both roughly 300 meters in length. Not due to "reduced budgets" but due to the designs actually having been THOUGHT THROUGH.

For the "nuEnterprise," they made it bigger for no other reason than to "be kewler." And they didn't even really bother to adjust the design details... they just scaled the whole freakin' thing up, meaning that the design features which made sense when copied off of the TMP ship suddenly make no sense whatsoever.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2009, 09:26 AM   #51
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

They also did this upsizing during the production of the film and after effects sequences had been completed that established the ship was a helluva lot smaller than 700 freakin' meters!

Which is why in some shots, it looks like it's roughly the size of the old ship, and in others, it's the Battlestar Enterprise.

At least Roddenberry upped the size of the original Enterprise before any effects work had been done. What's JJ's excuse?
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2009, 01:54 PM   #52
JuanBolio
Admiral
 
JuanBolio's Avatar
 
Location: Florida Keys, USA
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
They also did this upsizing during the production of the film and after effects sequences had been completed that established the ship was a helluva lot smaller than 700 freakin' meters!

Which is why in some shots, it looks like it's roughly the size of the old ship, and in others, it's the Battlestar Enterprise.

At least Roddenberry upped the size of the original Enterprise before any effects work had been done. What's JJ's excuse?
The secondary hull had TARDIS technology.
__________________
Never fear! JuanBolio wuz here!

This has been an official JuanBolio post. You are now stronger, smarter, and a better human being for having read it. Congratulations.
JuanBolio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2009, 08:02 PM   #53
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

Same as the excuse for the TMP rec deck and engineering, and TWOK torpedo bays, no doubt.

Regarding TOS, I still have my personal suspicions that the "dome chopping" between WNMHGB and "The Corbomite Maneuver" were a little bit based on rescaling.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2009, 11:31 PM   #54
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
They also did this upsizing during the production of the film and after effects sequences had been completed that established the ship was a helluva lot smaller than 700 freakin' meters!
The nice ting about CGI for visual effects: you can REDO those shots if they don't fit anymore. Which they did.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2009, 11:52 PM   #55
DiSiLLUSiON
Commodore
 
DiSiLLUSiON's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
A ship should be the size it's required to be in order to do its job... no larger, no smaller. It should be the size required to carry the crew, equipment, and payload, within a reasonable mechanical structure.

So, which of those specific requirements cannot possibly be met by a ship that's essentially the size of a modern aircraft carrier (as the TOS Enterprise is)?
That's exactly why I think ~700m is more logical then ~300m. You'd need massive space for supplies and the like, since TOS doesn't have real replicators that we know of (that's only implied). If you look at the interior decors; how clean the hallways are and such; you can also see the needed space to put all that plumbing, tubing and electronics.

The shuttle capacity of the TMP enterprise is also under par (if that screenshot is indeed a cargo bay and not an extension of the shuttle bay); you can't move large amounts of people with only a few transporters so, in the event of a planetary emergency or the like, you'd need either lots and lots of transporters or a good shuttle capacity (and the ability to launch multiple at a time).

Does it also work for you to revise other things, after the fact, to match "new facts?" Sounds remarkably Orwellian to me.

"Hmmm... I don't like this historical fact, so I'll come up with my own personal version of history that better matches what I want to believe." Yikes...
That analogy is quite broken; you can't compare a fictional TV show with real-world history. History is what happened. Star Trek never happened, except in the portrayal on screen. Even so, whenever we come across something that has been falsely assumed (and then proven otherwise), people shouldn't be resistant to changing the history books; why keep something that's not true while it has been disproven?

Matt Jefferies designed a ship that he thought was the right size for what the mission was.
Matt Jeffries is not some supernatural being, you know. Perhaps he wasn't deliberately making a mistake but simply misinformed about what would be needed on such a voyage through space.
DiSiLLUSiON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 12:16 AM   #56
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

DiSiLLUSiON wrote: View Post
That's exactly why I think ~700m is more logical then ~300m. You'd need massive space for supplies and the like, since TOS doesn't have real replicators that we know of (that's only implied). If you look at the interior decors; how clean the hallways are and such; you can also see the needed space to put all that plumbing, tubing and electronics.
No, no. Remember, 700 meters is keweler, therefore stupid. Stop with your logic and things. They make us have uncomfortable tingling feelings in places.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 12:42 AM   #57
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
They also did this upsizing during the production of the film and after effects sequences had been completed that established the ship was a helluva lot smaller than 700 freakin' meters!
The nice ting about CGI for visual effects: you can REDO those shots if they don't fit anymore. Which they did.
I don't see your point; if it still LOOKS like 300, then they didn't redo them well

And what is it about CG that makes it special? They redid tons of model shots of the -E in FC after production couldn't built the full-size deflector to match the miniature's curves, necessitating a reworking (and reshooting) of the already-accomplished fx shots.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 12:45 AM   #58
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

trevanian wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
They also did this upsizing during the production of the film and after effects sequences had been completed that established the ship was a helluva lot smaller than 700 freakin' meters!
The nice ting about CGI for visual effects: you can REDO those shots if they don't fit anymore. Which they did.
I don't see your point; if it still LOOKS like 300, then they didn't redo them well
It doesn't look like 300 to me. Actually, it looks like a large computer generated space craft that is bigger than my house but smaller than an asteroid.

And what is it about CG that makes it special?
What is it about COMPUTERS that make them special? That it's easier to have these discussions with computers and websites than it is with typewriters and scotch tape should answer your question.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 12:51 AM   #59
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

Once again, though, you guys really seriously underestimabe the sheer size of the classic Enterprise. 947' is frickin' huge, and you have a ship with far LESS crew than small aircraft carriers of today. We've already done the math on how much a 5-year supplies of basic fuel, food, and water would take for 500 people for 5 years, and the TOS Enterprise has plenty of space for it, given the layout of the ship.

The 'huge' versions of the NuEnterprise are honestly done out of sheer penis-envy, not out of any sense of being more 'realisitc' or anything. They were making a point not to be bogged down in 'realistic details', after all, and were more than a little condescending to Trek technology fans about it.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2009, 12:51 AM   #60
DiSiLLUSiON
Commodore
 
DiSiLLUSiON's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Re: JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
DiSiLLUSiON wrote: View Post
That's exactly why I think ~700m is more logical then ~300m. You'd need massive space for supplies and the like, since TOS doesn't have real replicators that we know of (that's only implied). If you look at the interior decors; how clean the hallways are and such; you can also see the needed space to put all that plumbing, tubing and electronics.
No, no. Remember, 700 meters is keweler, therefore stupid. Stop with your logic and things. They make us have uncomfortable tingling feelings in places.
Oh, right you are. Absolutely. *slaps his own head* Sorry.
DiSiLLUSiON is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.