RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,531
Posts: 5,512,689
Members: 25,138
Currently online: 713
Newest member: Bazzzz85

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

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


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 July 24 2013, 04:36 PM   #751
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
Probably wrong? We are talking about Montgomery Scott one of the most efficient engineers in Starfleet...
With a known tendency to exaggerate to make a point. Scotty is a brilliant engineer, but he's always been a little bit of a drama queen.

The hatches are the same size as the refit Enterprise's are as well.
No they're not. Apart from the fact that they have a different design from the TMP refit (the hatches fit inside of a larger docking mechanism similar to real-world docking ports) they're also noticeably larger on the new vessel.

I'm going to link this because it's pertinent...
It's from Bernd Schnieder's website, which ceased to be pertinent at least five years ago.

P.S. I came here to have fun and do some debating
Really? Because I'm beginning to think you came here to troll.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2013, 04:53 PM   #752
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post
That was funny considering both the transporter room and sickbay are on lower decks.
I'm not so sure about the transporter room. In Star Trek 2009, could Chekov made it there while Kirk and Sulu fell if he had to stop and take a turbolift?
Look at SFS ... in the span of what we're supposed to believe is 60 seconds, Kirk & co leave the bridge, take an elevator ride, run down a hallway, get to the transporter, beam out ... and then there is still time for klingons to beam aboard, go back up to the bridge, and look around, before the thing blows.

Makes the last 16 seconds till detonation in DOOMSDAY MACHINE (which is more like 2min) seem HIGH NOON-accurate with respect to screen time.
Not that it really matters in a curved/chaotic environment, but if Chekov is reasonably athletic he can probably do a 40-yard dash in, what, 6 seconds? Call it ten seconds with all the people he has to avoid and all the turns.

The saucer section is just shy of 300 meters long. If the transporter room is near the plaza -- and it appears to be, IMO -- then he'd have to run 40 to 60 meters and probably slide down a ladder or two to get there in time. Call it 20 to 30 seconds and a quick slide down a ladder to get where he's going.

I'm not sure how high up Kirk and Sulu were when they started falling, but since we don't know much about Vulcan's atmosphere or its gravity it's just about impossible to calculate how far they would have fallen in those 20 to 30 seconds or how fast they would have been going. The most we can say is 20 to 30 seconds isn't really that long, especially since he wound up beaming them onto the ship JUST before they hit the ground.

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
The primary shuttle design we see used is 12 meters long, the shuttle bay carries two rows of them either side, two stacked, mirrored across the bay.
FWIW, the videogame lets you get a pretty good look at the shuttlebay too. Assuming that depiction is accurate (it very much tries to be) that would suggest a total of 16 landing pads: eight on each side, four on each level. Apart from the passthrough in the middle between the shuttle bays, there is a considerable amount of room behind the shuttles for equipment and storage before you get to the bulkhead, and behind that -- at least it appears -- is another corridor running parallel to the bay.

That would imply an internal shuttle bay at least 100 meters wide.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2013, 04:55 PM   #753
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Distant Thunder
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Unfortunately the visual information presented in the films isn't always internally consistent; there seems to be an issue with scaling. Take the scene in STXI where Kirk rolls up to the Enterprise construction site on his bike. You can see people working on the outside of the ship, and either the ship is too small or the people are way too big. ( Giant cyborgs, perhaps? ) Or the emergence from warp at Vulcan. The first time we see what's left of the Mayflower's dish, it's way bigger than the next time we see it a few seconds later.

But in situations like these we should probably go with whatever is supported by the majority of the evidence. It's like the question of when the film Renaissance takes place. It's supposedly set in 2054 but only one scene indicates that. All the rest of the evidence in the film points to 2042.
__________________
Do you know what this is? What this means?
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2013, 05:38 PM   #754
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post

P.S. I came here to have fun and do some debating
Really? Because I'm beginning to think you came here to troll.
While you might be beginning to think that, you're not supposed to say it in-thread. If you feel you must mention it to someone, please use the 'Notify Moderator' button or PM the appropriate member of staff.
__________________
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 24 2013, 06:01 PM   #755
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
FWIW, the videogame lets you get a pretty good look at the shuttlebay too. Assuming that depiction is accurate (it very much tries to be) that would suggest a total of 16 landing pads: eight on each side, four on each level. Apart from the passthrough in the middle between the shuttle bays, there is a considerable amount of room behind the shuttles for equipment and storage before you get to the bulkhead, and behind that -- at least it appears -- is another corridor running parallel to the bay.

That would imply an internal shuttle bay at least 100 meters wide.
While I'm sure the depiction of the shuttlebay is accurate, I'm not so sure about it's size. Third-person action games usually increase the size of environments to give players maneuvering room. See the characters on the bridge, in the corridors or in the turbolift in the game, they look noticably smaller than the actors did on the sets.

That said, I suspect the shuttlebay and brewery are a bit too big for even a 725m Enterprise. What'd I'd give for that LIDAR'd CG model of engineering used when the gravity gave out!
Set Harth wrote: View Post
Unfortunately the visual information presented in the films isn't always internally consistent; there seems to be an issue with scaling. Take the scene in STXI where Kirk rolls up to the Enterprise construction site on his bike. You can see people working on the outside of the ship, and either the ship is too small or the people are way too big. ( Giant cyborgs, perhaps? ) Or the emergence from warp at Vulcan. The first time we see what's left of the Mayflower's dish, it's way bigger than the next time we see it a few seconds later.
The Enterprise was scaled down to fit over the power plant/shipyard location used, but the model was detailed for the 725m+ size. The workmen wouldn't fit in the exposed decks.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2013, 06:09 PM   #756
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
That's a different Enterprise from a different timeline. How is it relevant to the one in the new movies? Everything from the viewscreen to the shuttles to engineering etc. is obviously now much bigger than the versions in The Original Series, and the outside is too.

I just showed you images someone did that all but since you want to be an asshole about it I won't show you what I have that proves that the ship is 366 meters and no it's not from bernd's site either.
Oh come on, it's not like you were being entirely polite either.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2013, 09:04 PM   #757
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
I just showed you images someone did that all but since you want to be an asshole about it I won't show you what I have that proves that the ship is 366 meters and no it's not from bernd's site either.
If you actually had anything, you would have presented it already. Your argument boils down to you not wanting the Enterprise to be substantially larger than its previous incarnations, which is irrelevant to reality.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2013, 07:52 PM   #758
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

My primary takeaway thus far is that the nuEnterprise bridge is an oval. I hadn't realized.

It's my conclusion that:
  1. Those who designed the ship had one size in mind, probably close to the original
  2. Those who were in charge simply thought of it as "big."
  3. At some point those in charge realized it wasn't as big as they thought, and wanted it upscaled.
  4. Thus, the ship's official length is bigger.
Does it make sense? Eh. Can I live with it? Yeah.

Can I rationalize that in the Prime 2.0 timeline that a scared-as-crap dominated-by-Section 31 Starfleet poured entirely too much resources into building the Enterprise and ended up with a ship far bigger and more advanced than it was in the Prime universe? Yep.

There are some glaring technological inconsistencies that burn my biscuits, but official is official.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2013, 08:59 PM   #759
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Official is official, yes. Official sources may be wrong, however. A textbook example is the Star Wars site that stated that the Super Star Destroyer was 8km long, when this was clearly wrong. They revised it twice, with 19km being the final, and much more logical, value.

In this case, however, the official word on the size of the ship, and every piece of evidence we have, point to the same size: 700m+.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2013, 10:10 PM   #760
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Quite so. Many of us may not like it, but until they change their minds and Scotty looks to the camera and tells us different, the ship does appear to be in the 700 meter range.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2013, 10:12 PM   #761
talfe'anhar
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
talfe'anhar's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Ok, here's a question from a fan girl. Are there any pictures or schematics, that are as accurate as possible, that show the size in relation to the people inside? I didn't read through all 51 pages of posts, so I may have missed something. Thanks!
talfe'anhar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2013, 10:34 PM   #762
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

This teaser video for the 2009 movie shows tiny workmen on the saucer and nacelles:

There are tons of pics in this thread, showing how the rooms fit inside the bridge deck, how the shuttles fit inside the bay etc. but they're all fan-made (okay, they're mostly me made)
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2013, 10:44 PM   #763
talfe'anhar
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
talfe'anhar's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Ah, unfortunately my old Mac Mini will not play videos, and my Kindle won't play this one either. I just wanted a reference for size of people vs ship. If you can direct me to any stills, that would be appreciated. Thanks!
talfe'anhar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2013, 11:02 PM   #764
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I loved the "under construction" teaser.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 29 2013, 11:31 PM   #765
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

talfe'anhar wrote: View Post
Ah, unfortunately my old Mac Mini will not play videos, and my Kindle won't play this one either. I just wanted a reference for size of people vs ship. If you can direct me to any stills, that would be appreciated. Thanks!
End shot of the teaser here: http://graphic-engine.swarthmore.edu...nstruction.jpg
You can just make out a guy by the dome.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is online now   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 07:40 PM.

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