RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,503
Posts: 5,511,227
Members: 25,135
Currently online: 480
Newest member: nonbelligerency

TrekToday headlines

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

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

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 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 August 23 2013, 09:14 AM   #976
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
ComicGuy89 wrote: View Post
What someone needs to do is come up with something like this:

**Image Snipped**

The more official the better. It'll give us a good understanding of how the ship looks like inside.

Incidentally, I think that shows how it cannot possibly be only strictly 2 decks tall at the rim. The old Connie could barely squeeze in 2 decks there

Source: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cons...on_class_decks
Still wouldn't shut people up. Even the diagram in you posted isn't universally accepted. We have a official length of the ship, and people are still saying the people that created the damn thing are "Wrong"
Some people cant accept that it is bigger than the original, I guess they never will. If they cant accept the word from the designers and producers of the film then what will they accept...

Its a bit silly really, the NuEnterprise looks great and works really well on screen but some people have difficulty accepting change.
Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 10:35 AM   #977
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
That looks like two decks only alright.
It's the defiant all over again !

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Read my post immediately above this. Unlike some on this board, I have the ability to change my mind and decide that the length could be different than I previously thought. I'm willing to go to 400-450m. But 700+ is simply inane.
We're asking for evidence, not whether you think it's reasonable or not. Again: shuttlebay.

No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.

You crack me up, KDiD. The green line is the height of the corridor alone (8 ft, as I recall). There is a generous space between the decks behind the windows (your little blue line). Yet the imaginary decks you show above and below are not separated by this amount. And furthermore, the green line you show at the very bottom doesn't line up with the corridor either.
You're getting bogged down in irrelevancies. The point is that the space is there, whether there's a deck in there or not.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 06:06 PM   #978
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
I've brightened it up a bit so you can see things more clearly and outlined roughly where the corridor meets the saucer edge. As you can see, at least in this image, the saucer windows are not floor-to-ceiling like the bridge window. There's only room for two decks plus several feet of service space above and below.
Actually, it looks like there is a whole deck above the lighted one in this picture. There's a bit of space between the mid decks, and then room for another whole deck below the bottom (not visible here) deck. That would make it four decks deep in this case.

The windows aren't "floor to ceiling" but they're damn close. Almost as large as the windows in the Wheel Lounge in TFF, but a lot wider.

If you eliminate the service crawlways, you can squash three decks into the saucer, but then they don't line up with the windows at all.
Four line up nicely. Two window decks in middle, one above, one below.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 06:17 PM   #979
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
And please, please explain to me how the bridge, atrium, shuttlebay and engine rooms are supposed to fit into a 366m ship. I asked you this before and you never replied.
Read my post immediately above this. Unlike some on this board, I have the ability to change my mind and decide that the length could be different than I previously thought. I'm willing to go to 400-450m. But 700+ is simply inane.
You're tripping over the "length" issue as if length is a proxy for size. It is not.

If you rearranged the ship so that the saucer and nacelles were directly above the secondary hull instead of slightly above it -- IOW, if you arranged Enterprise's parts like USS Grissom -- the ship would only be 290 meters long. That, to you, would be more reasonable?

At its current size, the Enterprise is a modular construct of four vessel components, each of which is the size of a large real-world naval vessel; if you took 3 Essex class aircraft carriers and welded them together and then added a couple of Saturn-V rockets to the side, you'd basically have the Enterprise.

For those who think the ship is really 700m long, take a walk that distance so that you can see the beginning and end points. Then look at how much space that would give. Then imagine you had to run/climb that distance because the power was out and turbolifts were inoperative. etc...
700 meters is a little less than half a mile: or about four city blocks. Also known as "the distance between my dorm and the Literary History class I totally overslept for." I am VERY familiar with the length of that run: you'd be surprised how quickly a person can cover that distance with enough motivation.

More importantly, much of that 700 meters is the extension of the nacelles beyond the secondary hull, without which the length is only about 500 meters. Most important of all: the distance from the brig to the engine room is FAR less than the distance from the bow to the stern, probably around 250 meters or less.

So how long would it take to run/climb through 250 meters of tumbling starship? Probably about as long as it would take for a starship on an impact trajectory to fall into Earth's atmosphere.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; August 23 2013 at 06:28 PM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 07:24 PM   #980
YellowSubmarine
Rear Admiral
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

ENT: Future Tense established that the 31st century Federation has bigger on the inside technology, and that Future Guy (most likely a Romulan) was very interested in it. If he got his hands on it, and in same fashion it made it onto Nero's ship, and...

Ah, screw it, long story short: Enterprise is bigger on the inside, ship is 120m long, but the shuttles, brewery and the extra aft and port nacelles fit inside nicely, together with the life support hidden behind them.
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 07:31 PM   #981
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: The corner of San Antonio and a bottle of Fireball
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

It also likes to be called "Sexy."
__________________
I'm not saying it's cold, but I just keyed two cars with my nipples.
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 07:40 PM   #982
YellowSubmarine
Rear Admiral
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Poor Keenser. With her around, he has little chance.
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 11:32 PM   #983
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

ComicGuy89 wrote: View Post
What someone needs to do is come up with something like this:



The more official the better. It'll give us a good understanding of how the ship looks like inside.

Incidentally, I think that shows how it cannot possibly be only strictly 2 decks tall at the rim. The old Connie could barely squeeze in 2 decks there

Source: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cons...on_class_decks
Doug Drexler cheated when he made that - he scaled the old Enterprise up quite a bit to fit everything inside.



Matt Jeffries designed the old Enterprise to have 20 decks, as can be seen on the cutaway in The Making of Star Trek (and this version by Shaw - CLICK) - but for some reason, Gene Roddenberry decided there were 23. Franz Joseph, tasked with creating complete Enterprise floorplans (online here: CLICK) squeezed in these extra decks by trimming two feet from each, making the decks on his version of the ship shorter than the 9ft+ TOS sets.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 12:23 AM   #984
gerbil
Captain
 
Location: USA
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I love that we're arguing based on a design that's clearly either nonsensical or designed poorly in the first place. The placement of the turbolift on the bridge is ridiculous. Either the bridge is at a 30 degree angle to the front of the ship or the model is inconsistent with the set. Based on what we see later in the movies, it's obviously the latter. The bridge was always meant to face forward. Even the pilot shows the bridge crew oriented forward when being viewed from outside the main window.

Just a little perspective.
__________________
"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 August 24 2013, 04:04 PM   #985
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

^Well, I don't think a forward-facing bridge one the "almost totally new" Enterprise of the classic movies disproves anything about the original. But you're right about "The Cage" showing a forward-facing bridge where the turbolift and shaft wouldn't fit.


Anyway, back on topic. With the digital release of Into Darkness there are tons more clips and screengrabs out there. Here's shuttlebay 2, located about where I'd guessimated:


And here are two comparison shots of the bridge windows, the lower-detail version for general exterior shots and the higher-detail version which was composited with the actual set. The taller high-detail model is scaled for a 725m Enterprise (see pics way earlier in the thread). I wonder if perhaps they made the lower-detail version shorter to obscure the view inside, which would have increased ILM's workload quite a bit (placing virtual actors at stations and ensuring it all matched up with where everyone was in the interior shots)



Finally, here is a shot of the atrium during the fall sequence, showing all the decks in the saucer section:
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 08:36 PM   #986
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The bridge window is sort of like TNG ENT-D impulse deck. Firsts its square, when it is really more rectangular.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 08:44 PM   #987
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Geez, I love how they are already falling inside the ship even though the Enterprise is way too far away from Earth. What a stupidly executed scene.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 08:48 PM   #988
gerbil
Captain
 
Location: USA
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Geez, I love how they are already falling inside the ship even though the Enterprise is way too far away from Earth. What a stupidly executed scene.
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As "Fun," "Watchable."
__________________
"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 August 24 2013, 08:48 PM   #989
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The ship was tumbling end over end, the internal gravity was not compensating either enough, or at all, not changing the direction of "up" so that no matter how the ship twisted, it kept applying gravity as if it weren't, gyroscopically speaking.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 09:09 PM   #990
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
The ship was tumbling end over end, the internal gravity was not compensating either enough, or at all, not changing the direction of "up" so that no matter how the ship twisted, it kept applying gravity as if it weren't, gyroscopically speaking.
The tumbling scene stars just after Sulu says they've been caught in Earth's gravity and are being pulled in. Then Spock states that gravity is failing. The external shots show the ship tumbling and crashing towards and into Earth. Nothing stuck out to me about it.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
SeerSGB 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 04:26 AM.

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