RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,424
Posts: 5,506,784
Members: 25,130
Currently online: 614
Newest member: wilpatbenthe3

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 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 June 20 2013, 03:19 AM   #646
throwback
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

How about an arboretum?
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 04:22 AM   #647
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I'm cool with that, just wouldn't want anybody tripping over vines on their way to their duty station.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 06:55 AM   #648
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post
The Keeper wrote: View Post
Well, (I think the atrium is cool but) as far wide open areas go, check out the view out a window!
Which wouldn't be all that great in outer space; lots and lots of black emptiness, a dark void of nothingness, an endless chasm of ... I'll go for a walk in the atrium.
Really? Pretty much every warpstreak effect looks to me like an awesome screensaver. Would be more fun than just looking down or up a donuthole that likely comes off as a poor architect's version of the Museum of Modern Art building.
Ivanova: It's just that I've always had trouble waking up when it is dark outside.
Sinclair: Commander, we're on a space station. It is always dark outside.
Ivanova: [forlornly] I know... I know...

__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24 2013, 11:57 PM   #649
gerbil
Captain
 
Location: USA
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

So, for what it's worth, in Cinefex one of the effects guys was quoted as saying that during the pan up and down the plaza, there were 5 decks above and 8 decks below added digitally.

So that gives us roughly 13 or 14 decks in the saucer.
__________________
"Life should be revered simply for the fact that we need to be thankful that we are currently able to consciously appreciate what we are going through right now. ... This moment that we're having right now is highly significant." -Maynard James Keenan
gerbil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2013, 12:22 PM   #650
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

While Googling, I came across a pretty cool bridge plan made by ancient back in 2009. The front is a little inaccurate, but I figured it was close enough to see if the bridge and plaza would really fit inside a 2380' Enterprise. Going by a guesstimate bridge width of 50', and corridor height of 8' (giving a plaza width of 60'), they fit!

Although I'm not so sure there's room for those corridors around the bridge we see. But it's close enough for me
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2013, 06:47 PM   #651
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
While Googling, I came across a pretty cool bridge plan made by ancient back in 2009. The front is a little inaccurate, but ...
I remember that one. I think a little inaccuracy may be forgiven, as ancient started working on that diagram with only two promotional stills to use as references.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2013, 12:24 AM   #652
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

^He did a damn good job. The only other one I found was similarly from before the film's release and it assumed the viewscreen was a sheet of holographic glass with room to walk about behind it.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

Last edited by F. King Daniel; July 15 2013 at 12:43 AM.
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18 2013, 09:48 PM   #653
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

According to this article, the forthcoming 36" USS Vengeance model is 1:1600 scale - making the "real" ship 4800-feet long, or 1463.04 meters.

Full specs:
Length: 4800'/1463.04m
Width: 2400'/731.52m
Height: 1133.33'/345.34m
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18 2013, 11:00 PM   #654
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
According to this article, the forthcoming 36" USS Vengeance model is 1:1600 scale - making the "real" ship 4800-feet long, or 1463.04 meters.

Full specs:
Length: 4800'/1463.04m
Width: 2400'/731.52m
Height: 1133.33'/345.34m

Looks great, then I scrolled down to the price and died...
Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18 2013, 11:04 PM   #655
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

What, you can't afford one? *fans self with iPad*











(I wish!)
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18 2013, 11:23 PM   #656
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
What, you can't afford one? *fans self with iPad*











(I wish!)
For 10 grand I would expect it to be able to fly and fire torpedoes at people I don't like.

It looks amazing and confirms the Vengeance to be comparable in size to a Romulan Warbird from TNG and later as many here have said.

The question now is how big will the capital class Klingon ships be in the next film (assuming it to be Klingon war oriented), or even the Romulan capital ships if they are involved as in the TOS timeline the Romulan ship that we saw was pretty weak.
Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 19 2013, 02:59 AM   #657
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Gonzo wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
According to this article, the forthcoming 36" USS Vengeance model is 1:1600 scale - making the "real" ship 4800-feet long, or 1463.04 meters.

Full specs:
Length: 4800'/1463.04m
Width: 2400'/731.52m
Height: 1133.33'/345.34m

Looks great, then I scrolled down to the price and died...
Consider what the price-tag on their Enterprise was, though...

http://store.qmxonline.com/Star-Trek...ica_p_147.html
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 19 2013, 03:51 AM   #658
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

RE: Purpose of the atrium. With a vessel as large as the Enterprise, built for long voyages, it makes sense that a central core would exist around which officers and crew can navigate the ship. If your lost, go to the atrium core, and you can see which deck you want to get to, and navigate from there.

It also adds a sense of space, much like the lobby area of a large building.

It is always a good idea to have features such as this in a large complex to give a basic sense of geography beyond random corridors.

A starship could be traveling for a weeks or months at a time, and it's not good to have the crew feel confined.
OneBuckFilms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 19 2013, 01:19 PM   #659
The Librarian
Commodore
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

It would also help with moving cargo between decks - stick in some kind of crane, use anti-gravity lifts, or just turn of the gravity inside period and you could move stuff around without resorting to turbolifts or stairs.
The Librarian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 19 2013, 02:09 PM   #660
JoeP
Commander
 
JoeP's Avatar
 
Location: The Mighty Dominion of Canada
View JoeP's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The Librarian wrote: View Post
It would also help with moving cargo between decks - stick in some kind of crane, use anti-gravity lifts, or just turn of the gravity inside period and you could move stuff around without resorting to turbolifts or stairs.
Not to mention, it's probably all around safer for there to always be no gravity outside of the walking surfaces, so that if the ship is getting banged around and people are getting thrown over the rails, there's less chance of injuries.
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 06:29 PM.

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