RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,555
Posts: 5,401,690
Members: 24,861
Currently online: 579
Newest member: bunty2

TrekToday headlines

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27

Meyer: Revitalizing Star Trek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 26

Trek Costumes To Be Auctioned
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Hulu Snaps up Abrams-Produced Drama
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Abrams To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Sep 24

Trek 3 Casting Rumor Reactions
By: T'Bonz on Sep 24

Trek Comics Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23


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 16 2013, 10:27 PM   #271
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
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!!!!"
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2013, 10:46 PM   #272
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Irishman wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

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.
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2013, 10:49 PM   #273
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Irishman wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Irishman wrote: View Post

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!
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2013, 11:14 PM   #274
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

3chordboy wrote: View Post
Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
Candlelight wrote: View Post
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.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2013, 11:27 PM   #275
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

beamMe wrote: View Post
This. And perhaps the decks on the Vengeance are divided into various levels.
Well, wouldn't that make them separate decks?
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2013, 11:41 PM   #276
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
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.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 12:04 AM   #277
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Irishman wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

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.
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 03:43 AM   #278
Groknard
Ensign
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Kruezerman wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
^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: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
^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.
Try here. (image link)
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.
Groknard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 06:52 AM   #279
I Am Groot
I Am Groot
 
I Am Groot's Avatar
 
Location: I Am Groot
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

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

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
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?
__________________
We are Groot and Locutus of Bored.
I Am Groot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 07:01 AM   #280
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
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!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 07:16 AM   #281
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
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: View Post
Candlelight wrote: View Post
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!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 12:14 PM   #283
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

throwback wrote: View Post
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?
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 04:21 PM   #284
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
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
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 04:25 PM   #285
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Groknard wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post

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: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post

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.
Try here. (image link)
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 F. King Daniel; May 17 2013 at 04:38 PM.
F. King Daniel 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 01:43 PM.

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