RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,345
Posts: 5,353,927
Members: 24,620
Currently online: 529
Newest member: StarTrekSteve

TrekToday headlines

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

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


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 11 2013, 12:22 AM   #166
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Waiting for that TOS reference to Starfleet cruisers as warships...
There isn't one and never has been.

But... (the dreaded 'but')

When you have enough firepower to level the entire habitable surface of a planet, I can easily see such a ship being classified as a 'warship'.

Though I have no issue with the Vengeance being Starfleet's first dedicated 'warship'.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 12:38 AM   #167
anotherdemon
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
anotherdemon's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

A shuttle hitting a planet at warp would be enough to mess up a planet....
anotherdemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 01:25 AM   #168
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

anotherdemon wrote: View Post
A shuttle hitting a planet at warp would be enough to mess up a planet....
Care to cite an episode where that happens?
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 01:38 AM   #169
anotherdemon
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
anotherdemon's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Care to cite an episode where a Federation vessel takes out the surface of a planet? :P

Just as Federation ships carry enough firepower to scorch the surface of a planet (stated in dialogue), a shuttle hitting a planet at many times the speed of light is going to mess up a planet if it hit. Simple physics there.

Just the fact that we're dealing with ships that move faster than light speed will necessitate standard weaponry (even defensive) much higher than what we today deem as military only.
anotherdemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 01:55 AM   #170
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

anotherdemon wrote: View Post
Care to cite an episode where a Federation vessel takes out the surface of a planet? :P

Just as Federation ships carry enough firepower to scorch the surface of a planet (stated in dialogue), a shuttle hitting a planet at many times the speed of light is going to mess up a planet if it hit. Simple physics there.

Just the fact that we're dealing with ships that move faster than light speed will necessitate standard weaponry (even defensive) much higher than what we today deem as military only.
A starship is built with the firepower to obliterate a planet. A shuttle isn't, it may be possible to do some damage but that's not its intended purpose. In "A Taste of Armageddon", they aren't going to ram the Enterprise into the planet at warp. They're going to use phasers and photon torpedoes to achieve their goal...

A Taste of Armageddon wrote:
SCOTT: All cities and installations on Eminiar Seven have been located, identified, and fed into our fire-control system. In one hour and forty five minutes, the entire inhabited surface of your planet will be destroyed.
A Constitution-class starship is sent when Outposts along the Neutral Zone go quiet. A Constitution-class starship is sent to engage Klingons in the opening salvo of a war. We watch them go toe-to-toe with starships from other Empires, that's their job in a time of war.

Technically, they aren't 'warships' their 'multi-purpose explorers'. Which is why describing the Vengeance as Starfleet's first 'warship' isn't a problem. But it doesn't mean Starfleet had been pacifists up to that point or were pacifists in the Prime timeline.

Journey to Babel wrote:
KIRK: Starfleet force is used only as a last resort. We're an instrument of civilization.
And with they can bring an awful lot of force with a single ship.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 01:59 AM   #171
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Someone pointed out elsewhere that the problem with the remark about devastating a planet is that the Enterprise couldn't do fuck about an asteroid that was gonna hit Miramanee's world, even with months of lead time. Looks like a canon inconsistency, there.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 02:02 AM   #172
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Looks like a canon inconsistency, there.
In Star Trek?!? You lie!!!
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 02:11 AM   #173
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Someone pointed out elsewhere that the problem with the remark about devastating a planet is that the Enterprise couldn't do fuck about an asteroid that was gonna hit Miramanee's world, even with months of lead time. Looks like a canon inconsistency, there.
Remember TMP had the 'wormhole effect?' PARADISE had The Frieberger Effect (as in, who gives a shit, bring on a chick in a short skirt and have Shatner kick somebody.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 02:13 AM   #174
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
^The airlock they entered was the same height as the secondary hull windows a few floors below.
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
^The "78 decks" thing was added at Shatner's insistece, over the objections of the producers.
But... but... the people who MADE THE MOVIE said 78 decks! Who are you to argue with Shatner? It's his movie! The arrogance of some fanboys is staggering!

Besides, if you don't trust Shatner on the 78 decks (which of course is ridiculous -- the Enterprise is not that big), why should you trust him on the accuracy of the shuttle bay layout (which was just a recycled TNG set rented on the cheap)?
It was actually the throne room from Coming to America redressed. The shuttlebay on the refitted Enterprise, scaled at 305m as per all the manuals, should be about 16 meters wide.

Now, tell me how they'd fit two rown of 12m shuttles in there horizontally with all the room to spare that we see if the new Enterprise was that same size.

They are the same size on orthographic views.
- the shuttle is the size of the "C-" as it flies over the rim of the bay, directly over the camera
No, sorry. I advanced it frame by frame as the shuttle emerged from the bay. It's above the lettering, so there are two possibilities:

1. It's directly over the rim, in which case its size matches precisely to the letter spacing (which spanned C-17).

2. It was further up, in which case the lettering would look BIGGER than the shuttle (see "perspective"). So, even if the shuttle only spanned the "C-", as you claim, it would actually be bigger because it's further away from the camera.

Same size, see?
I haven't scrutinized any of this but you could get the impression of screwed up perspective depending on the taking lens -- wider ones distort foreground, longe ones compress whole view.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 02:24 AM   #175
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I'm not sure why people are assuming that an object at warp speed has a lot of kinetic energy.

For one thing, all formulas that we presently have for that in relativity, the ones applicable for objects approaching the speed of light from below, don't apply/give imaginary values for objects traveling faster than the speed of light. It's not like we have any actual evidence-based physics to base such an assertion on.

For another, there's even some sort of argument that the rest mass of a warp-powered craft might artificially appear to be vanishing small, you know like the rest mass of a photon is IRL. A real photon has kinetic energy, but how much depends on its wavelength, not its speed.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 02:32 AM   #176
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Don't bring science into this, CorporalCaptain. We're talking about Star Trek.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 02:41 AM   #177
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Don't bring science into this, CorporalCaptain. We're talking about Star Trek.
As far as The Paradise Syndrome goes, it seems Spock completely forgets the Enterprise has photon torpedoes and that they can build explosives with anti-matter like in Obsession. Perhaps Spock had the goal of diverting the asteroid instead of shattering it?
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 02:50 AM   #178
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Actually, I think the writers may have been more interested in basic science than a lot of the show's writers. For example, they took some care to explain why the asteroid's momentum represented a problem for the ship.

Other than that one statement I don't think we've heard anything to suggest or seen anything in five decades of Trek to demonstrate that starships have that kind of firepower. What would that have meant for the single Borg cube headed for Earth in "The Best Of Both Worlds?"
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 02:53 AM   #179
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
What would that have meant for the single Borg cube headed for Earth in "The Best Of Both Worlds?"
Simply means they have more firepower!
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 03:00 AM   #180
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Nah - a cube is tiny compared to a planet and though it's self-healing the Enterprise demonstrated in "Q Who" that it could be damaged. It's not that big. Faced with even the fleet of Kirk's time - twelve ships that could each destroy the surface of a planet - it wouldn't last long enough to automatically repair itself. The only way it survives is if it's from Krypton and gains invulnerability from Earth's Sun.

I can't believe I'm having a nerd moment here. I must go to bed.
Admiral Buzzkill 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 06:06 AM.

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