The Trek BBS statistics

Posts: 5,842,811
Members: 26,185
Currently online: 500

 The Trek BBS Starship Size Argument™ thread

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

May 16 2013, 10:27 PM   #271
WarpFactorZ
Captain

 King Daniel wrote: You repeatedly said 350m for the new Enterprise's overall length. I gave you a little more, 366m, the stated concept design size. Now you're telling me it's not enough to fit?
Here are the figures I cited at the beginning of this thread:

- 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)

Based on the measurements I made of the diagrams you provided links for, that's what it was, assuming the hatches were 2.5m in diameter. Make them an unusual 3m, and you have a hanger deck of width 32m, and a bow-to-stern length of 410m. Still nowhere near near 725m.

 This makes no sense. Why would the wall be visible in the adjacent window? It's clearly another room or hallway.
Basic perspective, as taught in high school art. I even drew a comparison.
Again, your drawings show nothing except a biased "guess" of where the wall ends to suit your argument. I think you're mistaken that they actually modeled the inside of the rooms to match what you see outside. More likely, they simply superimposed an image of rooms through the window.

 There would be room enough. As I said before, we see the deck heights in the corridor junction.
I see hallways that are about 10ft tall according to the interior shots, consistent with a typical building. What are you referencing?

Look, I'm really not against it being "slightly" bigger than the original size. But over 700m? That's just not sensible, and is simply BIG for the sake of being "BIG!!!!"

May 16 2013, 10:46 PM   #272
Irishman
Fleet Captain

Location: Charlotte, NC

BillJ wrote:
Irishman wrote:
 BillJ wrote: 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'.
It WAS called a Dreadnaught in the film.
Okay?
I was doing the rarest of internet things - agreeing with your point here.

May 16 2013, 10:49 PM   #273
BillJ

Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic

Irishman wrote:
BillJ wrote:
 Irishman wrote: It WAS called a Dreadnaught in the film.
Okay?
I was doing the rarest of internet things - agreeing with your point here.

Didn't you know that's not allowed here at the TrekBBS!
__________________
"Just give me two seconds, alright, you mad bastard!" - Montgomery Scott, Star Trek Into Darkness

May 16 2013, 11:14 PM   #274
beamMe
Commodore

Location: Europa

3chordboy wrote:
Chemahkuu wrote:
 Candlelight wrote: The hatch Kirk and Harrison 'fly' into the Vengeance was on deck 13, which was in the centre of the engineering section. Unless that ship has very limited decks (IE big spaces in between) then the Vengeance is the size of Voyager...
The decks do seem to be excessively tall.
that deck is especially massive... i'm remembering Scotty running across it and still not seeing the top of it
This. And perhaps the decks on the Vengeance are divided into various levels.

May 16 2013, 11:27 PM   #275
WarpFactorZ
Captain

 beamMe wrote: This. And perhaps the decks on the Vengeance are divided into various levels.
Well, wouldn't that make them separate decks?

May 16 2013, 11:41 PM   #276
beamMe
Commodore

Location: Europa

WarpFactorZ wrote:
 beamMe wrote: This. And perhaps the decks on the Vengeance are divided into various levels.
Well, wouldn't that make them separate decks?
Only if each and every deck had exactly the same height, with no spaces extending over multiple levels.
See it like that: Deck 13 (Engineering/Hangar-deck), Level 4.

May 17 2013, 12:04 AM   #277
Irishman
Fleet Captain

Location: Charlotte, NC

BillJ wrote:
Irishman wrote:
 BillJ wrote: Okay?
I was doing the rarest of internet things - agreeing with your point here.

Didn't you know that's not allowed here at the TrekBBS!
Yes. I'm prepared to be banned.

May 17 2013, 03:43 AM   #278
Groknard
Ensign

Kruezerman wrote:
Locutus of Bored wrote:
 Kruezerman wrote: ^Where did you find that cross-section?
I have no idea where it originated from, but I found it here (the link is in the image above as well) through Google Image Search. Strangely though, I can't find the Imageshack link on that page to track it back any further than that.
Well it's excellently detailed!
M'Sharak wrote:
Locutus of Bored wrote:
 Kruezerman wrote: ^Where did you find that cross-section?
I have no idea where it originated from, but I found it here (the link is in the image above as well) through Google Image Search. Strangely though, I can't find the Imageshack link on that page to track it back any further than that.
Yep, that's mine. Wow, I suppose I need to go back and finish that, right? Sorry, life kind of went screwy at the end of 2009.

I just wanted to pop in on this and say that my rendering is completely based on my own imagination, and this same debate that was taking place back in the summer of 2009. I had bigger (ha) plans for this image, but I've never gotten any further with it. Beyond the plan, the big thing for me was to a) show that it was conceivable that the ship was as big as they were saying it was, and b) to find a place for what all we had seen in the 2009 film.

After seeing the movie last night, I've got a whole bunch of new locations to figure out.

May 17 2013, 06:52 AM   #279
Locutus of Bored
The Mod Awakens

Location: A Galaxy Far, Far Away

^ Unfinished or not, you did a fantastic job. Extremely well detailed. Thanks.

WarpFactorZ wrote:
 King Daniel wrote: USS Vengeance scale. To quote Mr. Scott: Holy shit!
Seriously? Does this really make perfect sense to you?
What doesn't make sense about it? Starfleet has built much bigger things, so that's not an issue. The ship being twice the size of the Enterprise doesn't make a whole lot of difference in space. What specifically is your objection to the size of the Vengeance, and to the Enterprise being larger in an alternate universe?
__________________
'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'

May 17 2013, 07:01 AM   #280
Crazy Eddie

WarpFactorZ wrote:
 Chemahkuu wrote: It's bigger, let it go.
Yes, I agree. 350m-400m is bigger than 290m or 305m. It's just not some ridiculous figure like 750m.
What's ridiculous about it? At 750 meters, Kirks Enterprise is has EXACTLY the same dimensions as the Enterprise-C; the singular difference between them is actually the length of the nacelles beyond the engineering hull.

Is there something I don't know about the Enterprise-C that makes it "ridiculously" large?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

May 17 2013, 07:16 AM   #281
Crazy Eddie

WarpFactorZ wrote:
 beamMe wrote: This. And perhaps the decks on the Vengeance are divided into various levels.
Well, wouldn't that make them separate decks?
On naval vessels, a "deck" is a major horizontal division in the ship's structure, particularly in the hull. The superstructure that sits on top of the main deck of a warship is said to be divided up into levels, while deeper in the hull you have still more decks between the main deck and the keel.

Put that another way, a "deck" is basically the horizontal version of a "bulkhead." Because we're trekkies, we like to think of "bulkhead" as a nautical term for "wall" but again, on naval vessels, this refers to specific vertical dividers that break up the hull into compartments. So an aircraft carrier gets hid amidships by a torpedo, for example, the impact point might be, say, "Between bulkheads 38 and 39, just below E-deck."

If your deck is ten meters high, you can fill that space with anything you want. Catwalks, for example, are not decks, neither are platforms, stairways, landings, bookshelves, etc. Most naval vessels use "decks" as separate floors mainly because they are small and because it's easier to keep the ship airtight if you break up the space into smaller chunks. Submarines do not always have this feature, and starships are large enough that they almost certainly don't.

Chemahkuu wrote:
 Candlelight wrote: The hatch Kirk and Harrison 'fly' into the Vengeance was on deck 13, which was in the centre of the engineering section. Unless that ship has very limited decks (IE big spaces in between) then the Vengeance is the size of Voyager...
The decks do seem to be excessively tall.
That or we have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a "deck" is on a starship.

There seems, for example, to be a LOT of open vertical space on the Enterprise. We keep seeing corridors that open into spaces that have open roofs to the next level up, so that "room" is actually five-story shaft spanned by catwalks from one side to the other. I'd hazard a guess that any particular "deck" has at least four levels, which is probably a feature of how the ship was actually built: if each "deck" has an independent pressure hull, then its internal arrangement can be broken up into different floors and spaces for crew habitation, or you can fill the entire thing with machinery, cargo, water turbines and warp cores.

IOW, "Deck 13" could be as much as 38 stories down from the bridge.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

 May 17 2013, 10:36 AM #282 throwback Captain Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread The new film muddles the matter further. The Enterprise has a second shuttlebay. It has at least 72 launch tubes in the secondary hull that are located on the sides of the ship. And it has a big white blocky thing that houses a "thing" that is the reactor. And it has a multi-deck circular room with "bridges" that connect corridor segments.
May 17 2013, 12:14 PM   #283
beamMe
Commodore

Location: Europa

 throwback wrote: The new film muddles the matter further. The Enterprise has a second shuttlebay. It has at least 72 launch tubes in the secondary hull that are located on the sides of the ship. And it has a big white blocky thing that houses a "thing" that is the reactor. And it has a multi-deck circular room with "bridges" that connect corridor segments.
Are there actually 72 launch tubes?

May 17 2013, 04:21 PM   #284
King Daniel Into Darkness

Location: England

WarpFactorZ wrote:
 King Daniel wrote: You repeatedly said 350m for the new Enterprise's overall length. I gave you a little more, 366m, the stated concept design size. Now you're telling me it's not enough to fit?
Here are the figures I cited at the beginning of this thread:

- 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)

Based on the measurements I made of the diagrams you provided links for, that's what it was, assuming the hatches were 2.5m in diameter. Make them an unusual 3m, and you have a hanger deck of width 32m, and a bow-to-stern length of 410m. Still nowhere near near 725m.
Here you go:

Without a shadow of a doubt, what we saw in Star Trek and Into Darkness was far larger.
 Basic perspective, as taught in high school art. I even drew a comparison.
Again, your drawings show nothing except a biased "guess" of where the wall ends to suit your argument. I think you're mistaken that they actually modeled the inside of the rooms to match what you see outside. More likely, they simply superimposed an image of rooms through the window.
They modelled rooms - you can see them during Kirk's pod ejection sequence. Tobias Richter (who studied ILM's model) said theirs had 10x the detail his model does, and his is the most detailed model he's built.
 There would be room enough. As I said before, we see the deck heights in the corridor junction.
I see hallways that are about 10ft tall according to the interior shots, consistent with a typical building. What are you referencing?
The large multilevel intersection of corridors in Star Trek Into Darkness, where we can see there are none of the between-deck machinery areas you've been mentioning.
 Look, I'm really not against it being "slightly" bigger than the original size. But over 700m? That's just not sensible, and is simply BIG for the sake of being "BIG!!!!"
It's big for the sake of being what we saw in the movie. That's he shuttlebay we saw. That's the window we saw. You're applying make-believe standards of what's allowed and what isn't to a work of fiction - and as I said before, even in that work of fiction we have seen three sizes of the same basic shape (Nova, Intrepid and Sovereign classes), so why is it wrong to do that to the Constitution-class?
And why on Earth would ILM say the ship is 2380'/725m if it wasn't?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

May 17 2013, 04:25 PM   #285
King Daniel Into Darkness

Location: England

Groknard wrote:
Kruezerman wrote:
 Locutus of Bored wrote: I have no idea where it originated from, but I found it here (the link is in the image above as well) through Google Image Search. Strangely though, I can't find the Imageshack link on that page to track it back any further than that.
Well it's excellently detailed!
M'Sharak wrote:
 Locutus of Bored wrote: I have no idea where it originated from, but I found it here (the link is in the image above as well) through Google Image Search. Strangely though, I can't find the Imageshack link on that page to track it back any further than that.
Yep, that's mine. Wow, I suppose I need to go back and finish that, right? Sorry, life kind of went screwy at the end of 2009.

I just wanted to pop in on this and say that my rendering is completely based on my own imagination, and this same debate that was taking place back in the summer of 2009. I had bigger (ha) plans for this image, but I've never gotten any further with it. Beyond the plan, the big thing for me was to a) show that it was conceivable that the ship was as big as they were saying it was, and b) to find a place for what all we had seen in the 2009 film.

After seeing the movie last night, I've got a whole bunch of new locations to figure out.
That looks very cool!
HERE is my take on roughly where everything is.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

Last edited by King Daniel Into Darkness; May 17 2013 at 04:38 PM.

 Bookmarks

 Tags argument, size, starship

 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 Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Welcome to the Trek BBS!     Announcements     General Trek Discussion Star Trek TV Series     Star Trek - Original Series     The Next Generation     Deep Space Nine     Voyager     Enterprise Star Trek Movies     Star Trek Movies I-X     Star Trek Movies XI+ Misc. Star Trek     Future of Trek     Trek Gaming     Trek Literature     Trek Tech Star Trek Fandom     Fan Fiction     Fan Productions     Fan Art Entertainment & Interests     Science Fiction & Fantasy         Doctor Who     TV & Media         CSI (at Talk CSI)     Gaming     Science and Technology     Sports and Fitness     Web Sites/Design Lounges & General Chat     Miscellaneous Site Forums

 -- New blue ---- Old gray ---- Big blue Contact Us - The Trek BBS - Top

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11 PM.