RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,148
Posts: 5,434,320
Members: 24,935
Currently online: 595
Newest member: Howell

TrekToday headlines

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 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 6 2013, 02:43 PM   #106
EJD1984
Commander
 
EJD1984's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Just to add my two cents into the conservation.
I just don't like the nuEnterprise "super-size". The overall classic Enterprise visual cues suggest a much smaller size (close to the original). Whereas the Next-Gen Enterprise, gave you a sense of real huge scale, based on the visual cues.

For me personally, and from an engineering standpoint, the TMP Enterprise had the best representation of the ship, size and scale. Plus that move showed that it all depends on how the ship is filmed. It showed that you still fit fairly large sets into the ship, and still get a real sense of huge scale.
__________________
NXX-1701
EJD1984 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6 2013, 03:01 PM   #107
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

According to FASA's Star Trek III Sourcebook Update, the spacedock is 3800m across, a length of 4700m, a staff of 50,000, 100,000 residents and a transient population of approximately 20,000. It weighs 110,000,000 metric tonnes.

But of course that too big, it makes no sense. Form doesn't follow function. The windows and doors are too big. That's for shuttles, not for starships. They don't know what they're doing. That saucer isn't really any bigger than the one on the Enterprise.


Now let's scale the Whale Probe!
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6 2013, 03:24 PM   #108
cbspock
Rear Admiral
 
cbspock's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

EJD1984 wrote: View Post
Just to add my two cents into the conservation.
I just don't like the nuEnterprise "super-size". The overall classic Enterprise visual cues suggest a much smaller size (close to the original). Whereas the Next-Gen Enterprise, gave you a sense of real huge scale, based on the visual cues.

For me personally, and from an engineering standpoint, the TMP Enterprise had the best representation of the ship, size and scale. Plus that move showed that it all depends on how the ship is filmed. It showed that you still fit fairly large sets into the ship, and still get a real sense of huge scale.
I never got a sense of how big the ENT-D was most of the time because of the way it was filmed. In most shots it looked like a little model.

-Chris
__________________
"It's important to give it all you have while you have the chance."-Shania
cbspock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6 2013, 04:52 PM   #109
TOSTNGDS9VOYENT
Lieutenant Commander
 
TOSTNGDS9VOYENT's Avatar
 
Location: North Carolina
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

This is why there will never be deck plans of the new Enterprise. If the size is 725 meters but the ships windows and doors show it to be half that size, how do you make a blueprint? Since the ship was rescaled to make the hanger deck look large enough, it now doesn't work. If you look at a side view of the ship, the shuttle bay door looks to be no more than 25 feet tall when comparing it to the docking port door on the side which is probably no more than 8 feet tall. To cram 2 shuttles on two seperate levels and leave enough clearances for entry and egress, you'd need a bay closer to 40 feet tall.

If you tried to blueprint the ship as is, and scale the decks off of the bridge, what you end up with is a shuttle bay thats only about two decks high. So unless their running micro shuttles and only carrying children, it will never work on paper.
__________________
In this economy, theres no business, like no business!
TOSTNGDS9VOYENT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6 2013, 05:31 PM   #110
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

TOSTNGDS9VOYENT wrote: View Post
This is why there will never be deck plans of the new Enterprise. If the size is 725 meters but the ships windows and doors show it to be half that size, how do you make a blueprint? Since the ship was rescaled to make the hanger deck look large enough, it now doesn't work. If you look at a side view of the ship, the shuttle bay door looks to be no more than 25 feet tall when comparing it to the docking port door on the side which is probably no more than 8 feet tall. To cram 2 shuttles on two seperate levels and leave enough clearances for entry and egress, you'd need a bay closer to 40 feet tall.

If you tried to blueprint the ship as is, and scale the decks off of the bridge, what you end up with is a shuttle bay thats only about two decks high. So unless their running micro shuttles and only carrying children, it will never work on paper.
Wrong. See HERE for how it all fits together, bridge, windows, shuttlebay and all.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6 2013, 05:53 PM   #111
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Is it me, or do the slanted open shuttlebay doors look a little wonky? It doesn't even look like they can open all the way like that. Whatever happened to the tried-and-true clamshell articulated doors?
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6 2013, 06:51 PM   #112
throwback
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Converting meters into miles,

3800 meters converts to 2.36 miles
4700 meters converts to 2.92 miles
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6 2013, 11:49 PM   #113
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
According to FASA's Star Trek III Sourcebook Update, the spacedock is 3800m across, a length of 4700m, a staff of 50,000, 100,000 residents and a transient population of approximately 20,000. It weighs 110,000,000 metric tonnes.

But of course that too big, it makes no sense. Form doesn't follow function. The windows and doors are too big. That's for shuttles, not for starships. They don't know what they're doing. That saucer isn't really any bigger than the one on the Enterprise.


Now let's scale the Whale Probe!
Don't forget starbase 74, still the largest construct of the federation ? I look forward to a really huge JJdock in a future movie
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 12:30 AM   #114
YellowSubmarine
Rear Admiral
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I am a little bit concerned about Borg cubes. They would either be way too small to be a threat – they would be only slightly bigger than the Vengeance. Vengeance is so huge and sinister that Borg cubes won't look as ominous now.

Or... They would have to make them even more gigantic. Now that, unlike Carol Marcus' accent, would be a strange consequence of Nero and friends coming to say “hi”, I must say. Not that I would mind, it would be a pleasure seeing Kirk's ship feel like an ant in the hands of an enormous Borg cube that's playing with it, but it would certainly push some wrong continuity buttons.

I guess an easy cop out would be to send multiple cubes. But I liked Borg's invincibility and relentlessness when they were going alone. So oversized cube for me please, hot and no cream.
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 01:08 PM   #115
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The Borg could always simply dock 27 of the TNG standard Cubes together whenever necessary, and STXIII might represent such a necessity...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 01:51 PM   #116
anh165
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

YellowSubmarine wrote: View Post
I am a little bit concerned about Borg cubes. They would either be way too small to be a threat – they would be only slightly bigger than the Vengeance. Vengeance is so huge and sinister that Borg cubes won't look as ominous now.
A stock borg cube is still noticably larger than the Vengeance.

The problem isn't the size of their ships, its just the 'we are invincible god like and we want to eatz you' concept of the borg is a bit stale and worked on a on-going slow paced TV series rather than a movie.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 03:38 PM   #117
DarthTom
Fleet Admiral
 
DarthTom's Avatar
 
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

YellowSubmarine wrote: View Post
I am a little bit concerned about Borg cubes. They would either be way too small to be a threat – they would be only slightly bigger than the Vengeance. Vengeance is so huge and sinister that Borg cubes won't look as ominous now.
When did Spock try to save Romulus? Because Voyager already returned from the Delta Quadrant with 'trans-phasic torpedo' technology as well as that special shielding that Spock prime would be aware of.

The Borg are already defeated by Spock Prime's future knowledge.
DarthTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 05:41 PM   #118
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
According to FASA's Star Trek III Sourcebook Update, the spacedock is 3800m across, a length of 4700m, a staff of 50,000, 100,000 residents and a transient population of approximately 20,000. It weighs 110,000,000 metric tonnes.

But of course that too big, it makes no sense. Form doesn't follow function. The windows and doors are too big. That's for shuttles, not for starships. They don't know what they're doing. That saucer isn't really any bigger than the one on the Enterprise.


Now let's scale the Whale Probe!
I don't feel like getting out a ruler right now (). But for inquiring minds, I do remember reading somewhere in production notes of TVH that the probe was supposed to be somewhere around five miles long. So, about the size of the Narada.

Wasn't V'ger 82 AU in diameter, or about twice the distance from the sun to Pluto? I'd guess an Abrams-sized V'ger would take up the entire Alpha Quadrant.
__________________
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 7 2013, 06:05 PM   #119
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I can't even believe people are still arguing the size of the new Enterprise. They established the size as the super ubber dumb size it is, so I don't know what there is to fight against anymore.

Sure you can argue some scenes say this, and some show that, but in the end, the creators decided on a size and that's what it is. The Enterprise was super sized because drama and excitement is beholden to big, bold, splashy and bangy. And there's nothing wrong with that because people respond to different things during different times.

One day the Enterprise may be rebooted again- or whatever we'll call rebooting. People may or may not fight and resist or defend no matter what. The Enterprise may get even larger or smaller or turn into a yellow submarine. Kirk may become a chick (god help us all if that happens). Uhura may actually one day become a relevant and interesting character (not bloody likely).

My point is, evidence, smevidence. Just enjoy the damned movie if you like it and stop trying to compare new trek to old- they don't need to be compared as long as you enjoy the movie.
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 06:19 PM   #120
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
^That's what freighters are for. If you're using starships for that kind of duty, you've got too many starships with not enough to do, and that's probably not possible, given all there is to do and see .. plus the fact that somewhere the Enterprise is the only ship within the quadrant or interception range.
Exactly. What happens if you have to evacuate 5000 colonists and Enterprise is the only ship in the quadrant?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie 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 05:05 PM.

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