Starship Size Argument™ thread

I did this just for spite, it can't hurt right.

 

You're right that there are no CRTs in 2001 (2010 is another painful matter entirely), but nearly all the displays in 2001 ARE rearprojected, not matted.

 

You're eyeballing that, but you're not showing any analysis. HOW MUCH larger is the Vengenace's bridge window and what are those numbers based on?

"It seems too big to me" isn't a data point. Show us some numbers and then tell us the window is too big.

 

Actually, AFAIK we've only estimated Vengeance's length based on its size relative to the Enterprise; it appears to be just about twice as long, which would put it at 1400 meters long.

Incidentally, 1400 meters is about normal range for a sci-fi warship these days; SDF-1 was 1250 while Battle 7 came in at 1500.The battle cruiser UNSC Pillar of Autumn was 1170 meters (although none of the single-player levels in Halo-CE would actually fit inside it) and its counterpart the Truth and Reconcilliation is about 1700 meters long. The (reboot) Galactica comes in at 1440 meters while the larger Pegasus measures just over 2000 meters. What's also telling is that every one of those ships have "little brother" counterparts that are depicted as something less than full-sized battleships; most of those are in the 500 to 800 meter range. Forward Unto Dawn is the smallest, measuring 450 meters in length, while Battlestar Valkyrie gets about 850 meters from stem to stern.

All in all, Vengenace is a pretty normal-looking starship where contemporary science fiction is concerned. There may be a possible scaling issue with some features being too large and others being too small; that, too, is actually pretty normal.

 

You might want to take a look at the QMx Enterprise model before you start using their Vengeance as proof of anything. As cool as it is, it's not particularly accurate - there is no bridge window and there are windows on the secondary hull and hatches in the saucer which aren't on the CG model seen in the film.

Furthermore, it's from the scale on QMx model that we get the 4800ft size figure from!

My question is this: Why would they lie? What on Earth do they have to gain by pretending their starships are one size while really making them much smaller? How does this ridiculous conspiracy you're suggesting help them?

Oh, and here's a pic of the Vengeance's bridge window from the movie.

 

This discussion over the size of the NuEnterprise has been going on for 4 years, there were many who doubted the new vessels size but after hearing the official size from the designers it was accepted even by those who weren't happy about it.

All the "evidence" you have posted has been done before and you have brought nothing new to the discussion whatsoever from what I can see, yet you carry on thinking we will all suddenly start agreeing with you for no other reason than because it is you saying it.

This discussion is not a competition, it is not something that can be won or lost, you wont succeed in changing anyone's mind on the matter as this was all dealt with years ago after the first film came out.

You have not posted a single piece of evidence that stands up to scrutiny nor have you responded fully when challenged by King Daniel and the rest, instead you have tried to change the subject or post stupid statements like:

"One thing is for sure, the new Enterprise is a poor design that's full of large open areas making it easy to breach the hull and wipe out large portions of the crew."

Which made me when I read it.

If your intention is to make me laugh you are most definitely doing it right, if it is to make a serious point for the forum to consider then you have failed.

 

1) What do you make of the Enterprise designers word that it's 700+ meters ?

2) What about the huge shuttlebay and "brewery" ? You can tell they won't fit into the older design.

3) What about the bridge and its window compared to the rest of the ship ? Again, it's a lot smaller compared to it.

And you don't know exactly how large the bridge on the Vengeance is, because unlike the one on Enterprise we never got a good look at it. Your "mark" on the picture of a scale model of the ship is, again, a guesstimate by you.

This claim is contradicted by your behaviour in this thread.

 

That's actually the domed crescent design reflecting sunlight. The window is just below that, as marked by my green line. The 4500 foot quote was from an issue of Cinefex and they aren't lying per se they are just being really sloppy about the technical data. I know what a 1500 meter ship looks like and this isn't one of them.

 

It looks to me like a tiny rectangle just below the dome, and a perfect fit for the close-up you posted. Take a look (and maybe crank up the brightness on your monitor, which'll make these details easier to differentiate):


The Vengeance bridge was a redress of the Enterprise's, giving us an idea of the size of the ship compared to that window.

It's also worth pointing out that the VFX in Star Wars and Star Trek Into Darkness were done by the same company, Industrial Light and Magic.

Also remember that the shape of a Star Destroyer and a Trek starship are as different as it gets. One is a giant triangular thing, one is a saucer/hull/nacelles thingie with far less internal volume.

 

That was indeed a typo. 2010 it is. Ten.

That's the point. 2001 is rather timeless because of its excellent production design. 2010 ages pretty badly.

 

Oh, well, why couldn't you have just said that up front and saved everyone the time and effort? I'm sure they would have just dropped the argument completely if they had known they were going up against someone who just innately knows what a 1500 meter ship looks like.

Let's pack it in, boys.



You see, you keep saying you don't want to be flamed and complaining about imaginary hostility, but then you repeatedly say things that are designed to provoke such hostility, like assuming that your opinion is automatically more valid than anyone else's without backing it up. So, as has been asked by the mod before, what's your endgame here? What do you hope to achieve? Do you want to make people flame you? Because you seem to be going out of your way to poison the well and make that happen.

 

Sorry, I don't feel the need to put up an entire physics lecture just to state my opinion on a science fiction ship. Locutus, are you seriously going to use a picture of that idiot? You couldn't pick a better character, you had to pick the worst Star Wars character ever?

 

In before the (eventual) lock.

 

The Vengeance is angled downward so the window itself would not reflect any appreciable light for the camera to see and it's window still has some of the glass in it on the left side which can be seen at the end of the ship's crash scene. The shape of the vessel has nothing to do with the size generally speaking, I was simply pointing out that they are allegedly the same size yet one has it's massive bridge being a tiny window while the other ship has a much bigger bridge window. They are clearly not the same size or even close to the same size.

 

Really? What DOES a 1500 meter ship look like?

ETA: Something like this, maybe?

 

Yes it would.

So what? The bridge window on SDF-1 is sixty feet tall despite the actual bridge being much smaller than the Enterprise bridge. What does that tell you about the size of the imperial star destroyer OR the Vengeance?

Or are you simply implying that a bigger ship should have a bigger window? That's not even universally true in Star Wars.

 

No one's asking for a physics lecture. They're just asking you to provide a little more than eyeballing the size of windows from two different ships in two different universes and claiming that means anything to this argument.

 

Drawing on the hull where the parts on doesn't qualify? It seems to work for daniel and you guys don't argue with him on it. Just saying

 

Not when you do it "just for spite" and definitely not when you do it in the wrong place.

Frankly I'm still wondering how big you think Admiral Ackbar's flagship is supposed to be given its puny bridge window.