RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,369
Posts: 5,356,354
Members: 24,625
Currently online: 722
Newest member: 3d gird

TrekToday headlines

The Gene Roddenberry Project Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Moore: No Deep Space Nine Regrets
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pegg Star Wars Rumor
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28


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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 1 2013, 10:49 PM   #1
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Starship Size Argument™ thread

TheCutestofBorg wrote: View Post
The size the actual enterprise is is not much bigger than 2-3 space shuttles.
The space shuttle is 37m long. The original Enterprise is about 300m long. That's 8 space shuttle lengths, not 2-3. In the usual vernacular, the Enterprise is "3 football fields" in length.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1 2013, 11:05 PM   #2
TheCutestofBorg
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster

Not by the size of the windows and what is shown on screen. The Engineering hull is maybe twice the size of a nuclear sub. And the saucer section is maybe about the same size. By the time they cram in ships systems and everything needed to run the ship there cannot be much room left. And if you go by the 1st Abrhams movie Star Trek 2/3rds of the engineering hull is a shuttle bay that looks to be at most 30-40 feet high...
TheCutestofBorg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1 2013, 11:38 PM   #3
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster

TheCutestofBorg wrote: View Post
Not by the size of the windows and what is shown on screen. The Engineering hull is maybe twice the size of a nuclear sub.
How can you tell? Do subs have windows? Besides, Wiki gives the Ohio class dimensions as 170m x 13m. The dimensions given for the Enterprise's nacelles are almost identical. The hull is therefore much bigger.

You're also considering only linear size, not volume. Taken as a cylinder, it's volume would be 22,500 cubic metres. The engineering hull is about 100m long and 40m across. The volume of the corresponding cylinder is 125,600 cubic metres -- 5.5 times as big.

By the time they cram in ships systems and everything needed to run the ship there cannot be much room left.
Since we don't know anything about the "size" of things required to run a starship, it's hard to judge this statement.

And if you go by the 1st Abrhams movie ...
I try not to. (and it's 'Abrams', not 'Abrhams')
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 12:04 AM   #4
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster

TheCutestofBorg wrote: View Post
Not by the size of the windows and what is shown on screen. The Engineering hull is maybe twice the size of a nuclear sub. And the saucer section is maybe about the same size. By the time they cram in ships systems and everything needed to run the ship there cannot be much room left.
Here's a look inside the old TV series Enterprise:

The specs say she's 23 stories tall and 289 meters from end to end.
And if you go by the 1st Abrhams movie Star Trek 2/3rds of the engineering hull is a shuttle bay that looks to be at most 30-40 feet high...
Each of the shuttlecraft in Abrams' first movie is 40 feet long. And there were a LOT of them parked in there. That Enterprise is a lot bigger than the original:

This Enterprise is a whopping 725 meters in length.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 12:21 AM   #5
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster

King: why do you always compare 2009 Enterprise pics with 1966 Enterprise pics? You immediately handicap the latter by its limited budget, special effects, and the fact the production crew could care less whether the model matched the sets. Why not take pics from the movies where the viewscreen is bigger, the shuttle bay / cargo section is bigger, engineering is bigger, etc...?
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 01:54 AM   #6
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Starship Size Argument™ thread

If you're going to have an argument about the size of any starship, or about the comparative sizes of any two or more starships, please do it in here, so as to avoid the disruption of so many other threads with said argument.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg starship_argument.jpg (28.3 KB, 36 views)
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.

Last edited by M'Sharak; May 2 2013 at 02:11 AM.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 02:00 AM   #7
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
If you're going to have an argument about the size of any starship, or about the comparative sizes of any two or more starships, please do it in here, so as to avoid the disruption of so many other threads with said argument.
OK, thanks!
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 02:14 AM   #8
The Keeper
Commodore
 
The Keeper's Avatar
 
Location: Where reality ends and illusion begins
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Concerning the shuttle bay comparisons in KD img collection, are those beams, apparently holding up the ceiling really necessary?

They cause what could have been a decent new shuttle bay design appear clumsy and cluttered. IMO, of course.
The Keeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 03:14 AM   #9
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King: why do you always compare 2009 Enterprise pics with 1966 Enterprise pics? You immediately handicap the latter by its limited budget, special effects, and the fact the production crew could care less whether the model matched the sets. Why not take pics from the movies where the viewscreen is bigger, the shuttle bay / cargo section is bigger, engineering is bigger, etc...?
Oh come on, it wouldn't kill you to do minimal research. How can you complain about this stuff without knowing anything about it?

The TMP Enterprise was built to a scale about sixty feet longer than the TOS ship. The bridge set is about four feet wider in diameter than the set used on television. Yes, the main viewer is built to a wider aspect ratio than the TV version, but it's not substantially larger.

IOW, he could substitute pictures of the movie ship for the pictures of the TOS ship and it would make no significant difference. He's not "handicapping" anything.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 04:20 AM   #10
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Browsing through the archives, I found the following thread:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=119751&page=13

Didn't read through the whole thing, but based on those images, I could fit a big fucking "brewery" in that space -- particularly if the entire secondary hull is devoted to engineering + shuttle bay.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 04:28 AM   #11
Woulfe
Commodore
 
Woulfe's Avatar
 
Location: 3rd Rock From The Sun
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Didn't we have this same argument for the LAST film ?
Didn't it just lead in a great big circle as ILM just seemed to change the scale scene to scene in the 2009 film ?
Yet here we are again
Woulfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 04:44 AM   #12
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

It was solved ages ago. They made the ship roughly the same size as the old one. It didn't look "big" enough on screen, so they upscaled it. It's at least 700 meters long, possibly close to 800. That's it, end of story.

RAMA
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 08:38 AM   #13
Captain Rob
Commodore
 
Captain Rob's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Hmmm. Only 12 posts in this thread.
I guess the odometer for this thread finally rolled over.
Next up is the Battlestar Vengeance that's five miles long.
Or for you SW fans: "That's no moon. It's a starship."
__________________
Regal Entertainment Group murdered United Artists
Captain Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 10:14 AM   #14
SonicRanger
Rear Admiral
 
SonicRanger's Avatar
 
Location: Sheffield, England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

TheCutestofBorg wrote: View Post
The size the actual enterprise is is not much bigger than 2-3 space shuttles.
The "actual" Enterprise? No, the only spaceship Enterprise is exactly 1 space shuttle in size.
__________________
"STAR TREK is... Action - Adventure - Science Fiction."
-- Gene Roddenberry, 1964, top of the first page of his original pitch and outline for Star Trek
SonicRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 11:08 AM   #15
Kpnuts
Commodore
 
Kpnuts's Avatar
 
Location: London
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

TheCutestofBorg wrote: View Post
The size the actual enterprise is is not much bigger than 2-3 space shuttles.
Take a moment to think about what you just said.

(hint: it's more like 21 space shuttles in length)
Kpnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
argument, size, starship

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 09:02 PM.

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