RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,603
Posts: 5,424,991
Members: 24,805
Currently online: 443
Newest member: David Ellerman

TrekToday headlines

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12


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, 03:07 AM   #181
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
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.
But weren't they able to adapt to Federation weapons thanks to the encounter in system J-25?

And don't forget that in the novels they had a Borg cube eat Pluto!

But either way, the Connie's seemed to be Starfleet's front line vessels when it came to mixing it up with other Empires. So I think my point stands that a first-time dedicated 'warship' in the Abramsverse contradicts nothing nor does it mean that Starfleet was made-up of tree-hugging Hippies prior to Nero's incursion.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 03:08 AM   #182
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Don't bring science into this, CorporalCaptain. We're talking about Star Trek.
My bad!
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 04:17 AM   #183
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
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?
My fanwank from the 1970's was that Spock broke the Enterprise in such a way that it could no longer energize photon torpedoes. This idea was pre-TMP ["Belay that pha-ser or-der!"], and I'm also sure that I didn't crosscheck it with all the other episodes.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 06:50 AM   #184
anotherdemon
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
anotherdemon's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ,

You misunderstand. I meant that a simple shuttle having a warp accident and smashing into a planet would most likely devastate it. Accidents can wipe out planetary populations..., so it'd make sense for proper Starfleet vessels to have immense armament compared to what we see as militarily appropriate through the eyes of today.

CorporalCaptain,

The energy has to go somewhere. As it's not transmitted to the surrounding space when entering and exiting warp, it's a decent assumption that it's stored as KE as the vessel moves at warp. There's no mention of mass alteration and time dilation during warp, so we can probably assume that the mass of the vessel is the same.
anotherdemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 07:59 AM   #185
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

anotherdemon wrote: View Post
BillJ,

You misunderstand. I meant that a simple shuttle having a warp accident and smashing into a planet would most likely devastate it. Accidents can wipe out planetary populations..., so it'd make sense for proper Starfleet vessels to have immense armament compared to what we see as militarily appropriate through the eyes of today.

CorporalCaptain,

The energy has to go somewhere. As it's not transmitted to the surrounding space when entering and exiting warp, it's a decent assumption that it's stored as KE as the vessel moves at warp. There's no mention of mass alteration and time dilation during warp, so we can probably assume that the mass of the vessel is the same.
At the risk of bringing science into Star Trek, not so fast.

"The" energy? What energy are you talking about?

If we restrict ourselves to the established physics of relativity, then the amount of energy needed to accelerate an object to faster-than-light speeds (continuously, starting from rest, along a "best attempt" trajectory) has to be infinite. That is to say, no matter how much fuel you consumed, you'd never get there.

Therefore, to avoid infinite fuel consumption, a warp drive must artificially reduce the inertial mass of the craft, from the point of view of the outside universe, in addition to acting in ways contrary to presently established physics. (By the way, in there is an argument for it causing the craft's inertial mass to vanish, but that's beside the point.)

In fact, reducing inertial mass is exactly what warp fields do, according to Star Trek canon. From TNG: Deja Q:

Deja Q wrote:
Q: Simple. Change the gravitational constant of the universe.
LAFORGE: What?
Q: Change the gravitational constant of the universe, thereby altering the mass of the asteroid.

[...]

LAFORGE: You know, this might work. We can't change the gravitational constant of the universe, but if we wrap a low level warp field around that moon, we could reduce its gravitational constant. Make it lighter so we can push it.

[...]

LAFORGE: Extending warp field forward.
PICARD [OC]: Engineering, is that the forward limit?
DATA: Yes, Captain. We are unable to encompass the entire moon.
PICARD [OC]: Do you recommend that we proceed?
Q: The two parts of the moon will have different inertial densities.
LAFORGE: Stand by, Captain. I can adjust the field symmetry to compensate.

[...]

DATA: Inertial mass of the moon is decreasing to approximately two point five million metric tonnes.
LAFORGE: It's working. We can move it. Firing impulse engines.
In other words, the kinetic energy of a ship moving at warp really can't be as huge as one might assume, if one were to extrapolate from known physics alone. For, if it were, it would be too huge for the warp drive to work at all. One function of the warp field must be to reduce the kinetic energy, by reducing the inertia of the craft, as it is perceived by the outside universe, especially as the lightspeed barrier itself is pierced.

I eagerly look forward to seeing how STiD deals with this next week.

Now, on the other hand, a ship traveling at a high sublight speed, but without a warp field, and smashing into a planet could certainly cause a catastrophe.
__________________
John

Last edited by CorporalCaptain; May 11 2013 at 08:31 AM. Reason: clarification
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 03:59 PM   #186
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
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.
I've pointed out before that the ship interiors LOOK big because they're likely shot with a wide angle lens. That tends to give a distorted depth perception to scenes. If you ever had a chance to visit the bridge sets on a Paramount tour, for example, you'd see that they're much tinier than on screen. That's also why engineering looks huge, but really isn't the cavernous place it is on screen (the actual brewery buildings themselves are about 50m x 100m, and that's not just the tanks and pipes).
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 04:18 PM   #187
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Camera tricks don't hold up to analysis, but these large interiors and scaled exteriors have, as I've shown throughout this thread.

That as well as the huge shuttlebay.
__________________
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 11 2013, 10:53 PM   #188
anotherdemon
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
anotherdemon's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Warp drive doesn't equate to impossible physics (the need for infinite energy to accelerate past light speed for example), rather it's a space-time distortion that creates said distortion around the vessel and allows it to move at relativistic speeds through normal space. However, in Star Trek the vessel at warp is still affected by objects outside of the warp bubble.

Generally, entering and exiting warp as we know it will probably toast a planet at least if you're in its vicinity when exiting/entering. Since this doesn't happen in Trek, the energy of the warp bubble must be stored differently.

Hence, a ship, no matter how light, moving at warp, will literally toast a planet if it hits such whilst at warp.
anotherdemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2013, 12:55 AM   #189
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
Camera tricks don't hold up to analysis, but these large interiors and scaled exteriors have, as I've shown throughout this thread.
All you've shown throughout this thread is the RESULT of lenses making things look bigger than they are. Why can't you understand that? Your "evidence" is completely biased by what you call "camera tricks." Have you ever shopped for a house or apartment online? Have you ever noticed the rooms in the pictures look HUGE compared to how big they are in real life?

In the end, your "analysis" is no different than the one I did, which you subsequently shat all over and mocked. You measure pixels on one object, and compare it to something else to make your point. And, just as you accused me, I shall return the favour: you fail to consider the perspective! At least I was using orthographic projections for my measurements. You're using 2D projections of "3D" scenes and pretending you can correctly guess the depth.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2013, 01:10 AM   #190
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

anotherdemon wrote: View Post
Warp drive doesn't equate to impossible physics (the need for infinite energy to accelerate past light speed for example),
I never said that it did. What I said was:

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
In other words, the kinetic energy of a ship moving at warp really can't be as huge as one might assume, if one were to extrapolate from known physics alone. For, if it were, it would be too huge for the warp drive to work at all.
I also quoted some on-screen Trek to back up what I was saying. Yet you assert:

anotherdemon wrote: View Post
Hence, a ship, no matter how light, moving at warp, will literally toast a planet if it hits such whilst at warp.
Now, I'm genuinely curious: can you quote any on-screen Trek to back up what you're saying?

I haven't seen the new film. What I said about that was:

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
I eagerly look forward to seeing how STiD deals with this next week.
Is there something in the new film that supports what you are saying?

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Now, on the other hand, a ship traveling at a high sublight speed, but without a warp field, and smashing into a planet could certainly cause a catastrophe.
No comment about what I said here?
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2013, 01:19 AM   #191
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

CorporalCaptain is right - given that we know nothing about how momentum and kinetic energy apply to a fictitious "warp drive" it's impossible to say what would result from a collision between a vessel traveling in that manner and an obstacle in its path.

Hell, maybe it'd pass right through.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2013, 01:50 AM   #192
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
Camera tricks don't hold up to analysis, but these large interiors and scaled exteriors have, as I've shown throughout this thread.
All you've shown throughout this thread is the RESULT of lenses making things look bigger than they are. Why can't you understand that? Your "evidence" is completely biased by what you call "camera tricks." Have you ever shopped for a house or apartment online? Have you ever noticed the rooms in the pictures look HUGE compared to how big they are in real life?

In the end, your "analysis" is no different than the one I did, which you subsequently shat all over and mocked. You measure pixels on one object, and compare it to something else to make your point. And, just as you accused me, I shall return the favour: you fail to consider the perspective! At least I was using orthographic projections for my measurements. You're using 2D projections of "3D" scenes and pretending you can correctly guess the depth.
There's some validity to this observation. One of the difficulties on 2010 was determining the actual size of 2001's DISCOVERY sets, due in large part to the use of very wide angle lenses on the 65mm camera. Even with a lot of study by the art department, it seems pretty clear that 2010 messed some of that up pretty badly. For this TREK stuff, if you knew the lens used, you could then extract the distortion from the image and THEN do 2d projections to get an accurate size, but you'd need to know the lens AND be able to extract the distortion, which doesn't seem likely for anybody here.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2013, 12:07 PM   #193
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
Camera tricks don't hold up to analysis, but these large interiors and scaled exteriors have, as I've shown throughout this thread.
All you've shown throughout this thread is the RESULT of lenses making things look bigger than they are. Why can't you understand that? Your "evidence" is completely biased by what you call "camera tricks." Have you ever shopped for a house or apartment online? Have you ever noticed the rooms in the pictures look HUGE compared to how big they are in real life?

In the end, your "analysis" is no different than the one I did, which you subsequently shat all over and mocked. You measure pixels on one object, and compare it to something else to make your point. And, just as you accused me, I shall return the favour: you fail to consider the perspective! At least I was using orthographic projections for my measurements. You're using 2D projections of "3D" scenes and pretending you can correctly guess the depth.
ORTHOGRAPHIC VIEW. Establishing deck height, which matches the bridge, the rest of the windows, the torpedo launcher, the shuttlebay etc etc etc. While I respect that wide-angle lenses can make things look bigger than they are, these are not camera tricks. You yourself admitted earlier that the shuttlebay and bridge at the very least would have to be ignored in order to fit what we've seen into a ship less than 725m in length.

You're also again ignoring the shuttle size, and that it would be physically impossible to fit the rows of 12m shuttles in a shuttlebay thay would be just 17m wide.
__________________
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 13 2013, 04:37 PM   #194
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
Camera tricks don't hold up to analysis, but these large interiors and scaled exteriors have, as I've shown throughout this thread.
All you've shown throughout this thread is the RESULT of lenses making things look bigger than they are. Why can't you understand that? Your "evidence" is completely biased by what you call "camera tricks." Have you ever shopped for a house or apartment online? Have you ever noticed the rooms in the pictures look HUGE compared to how big they are in real life?

In the end, your "analysis" is no different than the one I did, which you subsequently shat all over and mocked. You measure pixels on one object, and compare it to something else to make your point. And, just as you accused me, I shall return the favour: you fail to consider the perspective! At least I was using orthographic projections for my measurements. You're using 2D projections of "3D" scenes and pretending you can correctly guess the depth.
ORTHOGRAPHIC VIEW. Establishing deck height, which matches the bridge, the rest of the windows, the torpedo launcher, the shuttlebay etc etc etc. While I respect that wide-angle lenses can make things look bigger than they are, these are not camera tricks. You yourself admitted earlier that the shuttlebay and bridge at the very least would have to be ignored in order to fit what we've seen into a ship less than 725m in length.

You're also again ignoring the shuttle size, and that it would be physically impossible to fit the rows of 12m shuttles in a shuttlebay thay would be just 17m wide.
So here we are 4 years later with someone still trying to argue that the NuEnterprise is the same size as the original when it clearly is not. Those NuShuttles are twice the size of the old ones and they have rows of them in the shuttlebay.

Not too mention the NuEnterprise engineering which is a huge area, from whatever angle you look at it.

Why is it so hard to accept reality WarpFactorZ, you are the only one left who cant accept the truth that it is larger, KingDaniel has been very patient with his explanations and has provided more than enough evidence to prove that the dimensions of the NuEnterprise are considerably larger than the original.

I was here when the original discussion started up after the first new film in 2009 and it was blindingly obvious that it was larger just by looking at it, no diagrams or comparisons that were provided at the time were necessary and back then I could not understand why a few members couldn't accept the new reality.

It has been stated by those who designed the new ship that it is twice the size of the original and the scale model kits that were released confirmed it also.

What is the real problem...

P.S

The Vengeance is a big girl and using the side view comparison from one of the trailers is easily twice the size of the NuEnterprise (probably more) which would make it as big as a Romulan Warbird from TNG (looks even bigger tbh), I have no problem with this as bigger ships mean more deployment flexibility and increased time away from starbases.

Last edited by Gonzo; May 13 2013 at 04:59 PM.
Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 04:55 PM   #195
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

All I know is this:

* My house size matters.
* My bank account size matters.
* My d*ck size matters.
* The size of a fictional starship, doesn't matter.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ 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 03:15 PM.

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