RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,523
Posts: 5,512,399
Members: 25,138
Currently online: 394
Newest member: Tosty82

TrekToday headlines

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


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 3 2013, 03:53 PM   #31
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Neat clip, but you really can't tell anything about the scale of the ship from the aerial shot.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 05:53 PM   #32
Mad Jack Wolfe
Lieutenant Commander
 
Mad Jack Wolfe's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I'd say larger than a breadbox and slightly smaller than Michael Bay's ego.
__________________
Life is full of disappointments. For instance, I really hoped "Chariots of Fire" would be a remake of "Ben Hur" with flame throwers.
Mad Jack Wolfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 06:12 PM   #33
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I'm sure this has been stated before (it pretty much echoes arguments I've seen on the web), but I'm bored and wanted to check for myself. Using this schematic:

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars..._schematic.jpg

I get the following measurements. Assume the hatches in the neck and secondary hull at 2.5m wide (reasonable, based on what we've seen, incl. in the new trailers where they spacewalk), you find:

- Primary hull diameter = 238 m
- Secondary hull length = 189 m
- Total length (excluding nacelles) = 343 m
- Height = 97.5 m
- Max. width of secondary hull = 45 m
- Max. height of secondary hull = 39 m (measured from base of neck)
- Width of hanger deck (at doors) = 26 m
- height of hanger doors = 8.5 m
- Bridge viewscreen / window = 8.5 m
- Round porthole window diameter = 0.6m
- Diameter of "bridge" dome = 9 m
- Bridge diameter = 18m (assuming it fills the space between the two "side" windows)

Every one of these dimensions seem quite reasonable to me, and obviously the exterior form of the ship was designed to basically match that of the TMP refit.

There are TWO problems. If shuttles are 40ft long (12m), as someone stated, then you can only park them sideways if you have 2m between them. If shuttles are 30ft long (9m), then you can basically park 3 end to end across the shuttle bay -- kind of what we see in the movie.

The second problem is with the viewscreen height. According to that diagram, it would be 1.25m high (a little over 4ft). Obviously we see Kirk standing tall with room to spare, suggesting that it is about 2m high. Of course, it could be a resolution issue on the above diagram.

But if you scale the ship based only on these two artistic elements (because they "look cool"), portholes become unreasonably large, the hatches become a ludicrous 4m across, etc...
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 06:33 PM   #34
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Over on Memory Alpha, it says the finalized length of the Enteprise is 2397.75 feet (725.35 meters). That's reported in the "Starship" Blu-ray feature. It also says this size was specified by the licensor of the model kit, who got it from ILM.

As many others have said, the article notes that the initial 1200 foot size was considered too small as production continued, so they scaled things up. By fall 2007, the size was wavering at anywhere between 3000 and 5000 feet.

Full link here. Scroll down to "Size" near the bottom of the page. It is quite well documented.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_...ernate_reality)
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 07:01 PM   #35
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
I'm sure this has been stated before (it pretty much echoes arguments I've seen on the web), but I'm bored and wanted to check for myself. Using this schematic:

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars..._schematic.jpg
That's Tobias Richter's first attempt at the 2009 Enterprise, made prior to the film's release. Here is his revised and more screen-accurate model.
I get the following measurements. Assume the hatches in the neck and secondary hull at 2.5m wide (reasonable, based on what we've seen, incl. in the new trailers where they spacewalk), you find:

- Primary hull diameter = 238 m
- Secondary hull length = 189 m
- Total length (excluding nacelles) = 343 m
- Height = 97.5 m
- Max. width of secondary hull = 45 m
- Max. height of secondary hull = 39 m (measured from base of neck)
- Width of hanger deck (at doors) = 26 m
- height of hanger doors = 8.5 m
- Bridge viewscreen / window = 8.5 m
- Round porthole window diameter = 0.6m
- Diameter of "bridge" dome = 9 m
- Bridge diameter = 18m (assuming it fills the space between the two "side" windows)

Every one of these dimensions seem quite reasonable to me, and obviously the exterior form of the ship was designed to basically match that of the TMP refit.
They may match what you wish the ship size was and what the old movies depicted, but it completely fails to match what we saw in the 2009 movie and what we've already seen in the 2013 sequel previews.
There are TWO problems. If shuttles are 40ft long (12m), as someone stated, then you can only park them sideways if you have 2m between them. If shuttles are 30ft long (9m), then you can basically park 3 end to end across the shuttle bay -- kind of what we see in the movie.
Why this need to fudge the sizes? That's not how you get accurate measurements.
The second problem is with the viewscreen height. According to that diagram, it would be 1.25m high (a little over 4ft). Obviously we see Kirk standing tall with room to spare, suggesting that it is about 2m high. Of course, it could be a resolution issue on the above diagram.

But if you scale the ship based only on these two artistic elements (because they "look cool"), portholes become unreasonably large, the hatches become a ludicrous 4m across, etc...
They are not "artistic elements" that "look cool" they are EVIDENCE. I'm working from what the films show us, and the people who made the damn thing tell us. You are working from obsolete assumptions and nothing else. It's the Trekkie equivalent of saying the Earth is 4000 years old.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 08:05 PM   #36
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
That's Tobias Richter's first attempt at the 2009 Enterprise, made prior to the film's release. Here is his revised and more screen-accurate model.
OK, thanks. Same size.


They are not "artistic elements" that "look cool" they are EVIDENCE. I'm working from what the films show us, and the people who made the damn thing tell us. You are working from obsolete assumptions and nothing else. It's the Trekkie equivalent of saying the Earth is 4000 years old.
First, that's a ridiculous analogy. Second, your "evidence" doesn't even provide a consistent scale size. The ship grows and shrinks depending on how they decide to match interior to exterior. How is that reliable? It was an image superposition where one image (ship) was arbitrarily scaled up so the second image (people / shuttles) would fit in and the composite would "look cool."

Anyway, Kirk's personal escape pod is seen being ejected from one of these hatches. No way that thing was 5m in diameter. Does that "evidence" get thrown out?

I really don't care what artists think the size is, based on their need to make something "look cool." That's why there's a term "artistic license", which means to stretch the truth because you can.

I match the form with the function. The Enterprise shouldn't have 5m diameter hatches. Who thought of that? Can you explain what they're for? It makes no sense for the ship to be over 200m tall (as high as a 70 storey building). etc... etc... etc... Shall I repeat: THOSE DIMENSIONS MAKE NO SENSE.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 08:08 PM   #37
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
They are not "artistic elements" that "look cool" they are EVIDENCE. I'm working from what the films show us, and the people who made the damn thing tell us. You are working from obsolete assumptions and nothing else. It's the Trekkie equivalent of saying the Earth is 4000 years old.
You're absolutely right, of course, but then you do research and apply logic. The "young Earth trekkies" just know what they know 'cause, uh, they're pretty sure they know it somehow.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 08:25 PM   #38
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
You're absolutely right, of course, but then you do research and apply logic.
If your "research" reveals inconsistencies with your assumptions, then "logic" dictates you should throw out your assumptions. A starship that is different sizes depending on which window or door you look through suggests the problem is looking in from the outside.

Last edited by WarpFactorZ; May 3 2013 at 08:52 PM.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 08:51 PM   #39
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Y'know, I'm wondering if this size weirdness is why no deckplans or cutaways have been produced yet, official or otherwise. I'm not sure the producers even know at this point...
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 08:54 PM   #40
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
Y'know, I'm wondering if this size weirdness is why no deckplans or cutaways have been produced yet, official or otherwise. I'm not sure the producers even know at this point...
It wouldn't surprise me. They painted themselves into a corner on this issue.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 09:05 PM   #41
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
First, that's a ridiculous analogy. Second, your "evidence" doesn't even provide a consistent scale size. The ship grows and shrinks depending on how they decide to match interior to exterior. How is that reliable? It was an image superposition where one image (ship) was arbitrarily scaled up so the second image (people / shuttles) would fit in and the composite would "look cool."

Anyway, Kirk's personal escape pod is seen being ejected from one of these hatches. No way that thing was 5m in diameter. Does that "evidence" get thrown out?
Look closer. The hatch is only half the size of it's outer collar... and you might want to have a look in those windows too - they're about the size of the bridge one. See inside?


I really don't care what artists think the size is, based on their need to make something "look cool."
Well in that case you're screwed, since the Enterprise was designed to look cool - in 1964. Every single ship in Star Trek's 46 year history has been designed with visuals first and foremost in mind.
That's why there's a term "artistic license", which means to stretch the truth because you can.

I match the form with the function. The Enterprise shouldn't have 5m diameter hatches. Who thought of that? Can you explain what they're for? It makes no sense for the ship to be over 200m tall (as high as a 70 storey building). etc... etc... etc... Shall I repeat: THOSE DIMENSIONS MAKE NO SENSE.
Form with function as it relates to Star Trek? Shouldn't you be trying to convince me the Enterprise is the shape of a rocket, or perhaps spherical? What sense does the Enterprise's shape make in the first place? What sense was putting the bridge on the very top level, completely vulnerable?

And how do you define "making sense" with regard to a fictitious spaceship? It's all make-believe. The old Enterprise can be 289m while this one can be several times bigger with no trouble at all. Remember that insanely huge mushroom-shaped spacedock in the classic movies? If Starfleet can build them, ships like the USS Enterprise and the USS Vengeance are nothing in comparison. There is NO in-universe reason why they can't be the sizes ILM claim, and no real-life reason, either.

I'll say again, you're arguing what you want the ship to be and not what it actually is in the film.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 09:12 PM   #42
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
If your "research" reveals inconsistencies with your assumptions, then "logic" dictates you should throw out your assumptions. A starship that is different sizes depending on which window or door you look through suggests the problem is looking in from the outside.
Your "evidence" amounts to measuring inaccurate and low resolution fan art, and obsolete assumptions based on pre-reboot Trek.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 09:15 PM   #43
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

No one painted themselves into a corner. ILM set it at 2397.75 when they scaled up the ship. That has become the official length, size of windows and such notwithstanding.

The old "Enterprise Tour" website associated with the first movie had the specs:
-- Mass: 495,000 metric tonnes.
-- Length: 2500 feet (only 103 feet from 2397, maybe someone rounded up, but it's not 1200 feet, either).
-- Saucer diameter: 1100 feet.
-- Ship height: 625 feet (about 60 stories).
-- In a sentimental nod to reality, it said the ship's designer was W. Matthew Jefferies.
-- I believe the site also offered a tour of parts of the Enterprise not shown in the movie.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 09:15 PM   #44
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

"There" "are" "a" "lot" "of" "quotes" "flying" "about".
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 09:28 PM   #45
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

How about this: instead of using rulers and pictures and approximate scales, just Google "size of the enterprise 2009" or something like that and you'll find several links that discuss the scaling up of the ship from its length of about 1200 feet early in production to what its length became (2397 feet). There's no confusion about it. The story is widely known. Making a case for the ship being smaller is barking up the wrong tree, beating a dead horse, getting the wrong end of the stick, and all that.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin 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 01:33 PM.

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