RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,208
Posts: 5,437,264
Members: 24,951
Currently online: 685
Newest member: Zaminhon

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

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


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 June 6 2013, 04:26 AM   #496
throwback
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie,

We did see April's Enterprise. It looked like Kirk's Enterprise, only smaller.

Considering how many species have time travel capability, and considering how many Federation starship captains have managed to change time, I think its impossible to judge what is the original timeline, if there ever existed one, and, in a real world perspective, these changes can be used to justify and rationalize any incontinuities in the franchise.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 05:05 AM   #497
Maxillius
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Well, if April had an Enterprise, and his was, I assume, the 300-meter size certain people are so fond of, wouldn't *that* ship be of the Constitution class? Or was there a plaque or sign that says this Enterprise is a Connie? Besides, why would they decommission a class of ship that can only be, at maximum, 30 years old?

Unless technology in the nuUniverse progresses even faster than it did in the prime universe. Actually, considering the Vengeance and her WORKING transwarp drive, not only are they progressing faster, their tech works better.
Maxillius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 10:16 AM   #498
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

throwback wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie,

We did see April's Enterprise. It looked like Kirk's Enterprise, only smaller.
How did you figure it was smaller ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 01:52 PM   #499
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Maxillius wrote: View Post
Well, if April had an Enterprise, and his was, I assume, the 300-meter size certain people are so fond of, wouldn't *that* ship be of the Constitution class? Or was there a plaque or sign that says this Enterprise is a Connie? Besides, why would they decommission a class of ship that can only be, at maximum, 30 years old?

Unless technology in the nuUniverse progresses even faster than it did in the prime universe. Actually, considering the Vengeance and her WORKING transwarp drive, not only are they progressing faster, their tech works better.
I like the fact that there is working transwarp in the new films, it opens up a lot more story possibilities.

I am hoping that the year between the capture of Khan and the rechristening of the Enterprise will mean some nice upgrades have been installed. Possibly even transwarp as it has been perfected on the Vengeance, a few of those Bo***ck phaser turrets wouldn't go amiss either.

The tech has already been tested via the Vengeance so no reason not to use them on the Enterprise as it is plenty big enough in this timeline to carry them.
Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 09:44 PM   #500
AJA
Lieutenant
 
Location: Colorado
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Nowhere in the new film is the term "transwarp" used. Carol Marcus just says that the Vengeance has "advanced warp capabilities."
__________________
"Je voudrais voler, comme un oiseau d'ailer."
-Only If...
AJA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 10:02 PM   #501
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

AJA wrote: View Post
Nowhere in the new film is the term "transwarp" used. Carol Marcus just says that the Vengeance has "advanced warp capabilities."
Not even in conjunction with Scotty's beaming formula? True, I certainly never heard it conjunction with propulsion.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 10:04 PM   #502
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
AJA wrote: View Post
Nowhere in the new film is the term "transwarp" used. Carol Marcus just says that the Vengeance has "advanced warp capabilities."
Not even in conjunction with Scotty's beaming formula?
Of course it is.

I wonder if the transwarp beaming formula could have something to do with the Vengeance leap in propulsion technology?
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 10:26 PM   #503
AJA
Lieutenant
 
Location: Colorado
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

My mistake. But as far as propulsion, the Vengeance isn't described as "transwarp" capable.
__________________
"Je voudrais voler, comme un oiseau d'ailer."
-Only If...
AJA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 10:39 PM   #504
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

For whatever it's worth, Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise and FASA's old gaming manuals technobabbled that the STIII transwarp drive somehow combined the transporter and warp drive systems.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 11:01 PM   #505
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

It also claimed the 1701-A had transwarp.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 11:03 PM   #506
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
It also claimed the 1701-A had transwarp.
That explains how it got to the center of the galaxy so quickly.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 01:16 AM   #507
Maxillius
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I call bullshit on 1701-A having transwarp.
Maxillius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 01:50 AM   #508
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

So do I. It was an unofficial book.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 03:33 AM   #509
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
It also claimed the 1701-A had transwarp.
That explains how it got to the center of the galaxy so quickly.
It also explains how Enterprise and Excelsior were both able to cover the distances that they did in such a short amount of time. Both are shown warping to Khitomer from totally different locations -- arguably, totally different sectors of space -- in less than a day. Still earlier, Enterprise manages to warp across space from a position within Federation space to a location "deep within the Klingon frontier" in a matter of hours. It suffices to say that the Enterprise-A was considerably faster than the original Enterprise.

Maxillius wrote: View Post
I call bullshit on 1701-A having transwarp.
Seems perfectly plausible to me, especially since it's not entirely clear what "transwarp" even means other than "really really fast warp."
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 05:16 AM   #510
JoeP
Commander
 
JoeP's Avatar
 
Location: The Mighty Dominion of Canada
View JoeP's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

beamMe wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
In fact, someone show me where it is conclusively established that there are four or five decks along the saucer rim. 'Cause I don't think it ever was.
Look at the airlock on the neck-pylon, the door is at least as high as the windows on the neck, which in turn are at least as high as the larger windows you can see here on the saucer.
It's reasonable to assume that the saucer can be, at the rim, as high as five standard-height decks.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a...ekxihd1008.jpg
Looking at this screengrab from the 2009 teaser where you can see a worker kneeling over to weld, it's EASILY five decks...

JoeP 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 09:54 PM.

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