RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,354
Posts: 5,502,933
Members: 25,121
Currently online: 572
Newest member: MsMarrielle

TrekToday headlines

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

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11

Frakes: Sign Me Up!
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


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 > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 15 2011, 10:56 AM   #16
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

The sets were all made up of panels 10' high and up to 8' wide (although 4' was typical).

However, the full height of the corridors and rooms were rarely seen. A 9' ceiling could easily be extrapolated, except in a few instances:

corbomitemaneuver
charliex
dayofdove
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2011, 01:31 PM   #17
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

^Thanks 9-10' was what I guestimated.

LCARS 24 wrote: View Post
You cite the Excelsior class. Okay, here's a cross section where the length of 469 meters is shown in 695 pixels, with 4 pixels for deck height. So (469/695)*4 ylelds 2.6954 meters (8.86 feet) deck to deck. That is a bit tight, but not severe. When I do these I usually determine number of decks looking at 3.5 to 4 meters deck to deck, whatever in that range can fit the exterior clues.

I hope you don't mind, I borowed it and scaled it with a 6' Spock:


It looks too small to me. Considering the complex ceilings that Trek sets usually have, and that there probably needs to be room for machinery between decks (has Trek deck thickness ever been established?), I think 777.7m (which perfectly fits the tiny bridge/lounge dome added on top for STVI and matches the bridge set itself) is the correct size.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2011, 01:38 PM   #18
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Here's the 2009 Enterprise stuff, supporting a 1200 meter size:




Top and front shots of the Enterprise model are Tobias Richter's.

Here is the early size chart from the "Art of the Movie" book, which the CG model appears to have been actually built and detailed to. Even in the shipyard scene, where the ship model is scaled down to 1200 feet (366m), the explosed decks support the 1200m figure (which has been fudged Excelsior-style down to 725m)

But my original point is this: Why fudge at all? Why not just say Excelsior is 700-777m, the refit Enterprise ~350m, nuEnterprise 1200m, etc.? Has anyone considered that the last few technical manuals may have sold a little better if the statistics matched what was on-screen in Star Trek, especially in an age where we've got the technology to easily spot a bogus figure?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2011, 04:21 PM   #19
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
^Thanks 9-10' was what I guestimated.

LCARS 24 wrote: View Post
You cite the Excelsior class. Okay, here's a cross section where the length of 469 meters is shown in 695 pixels, with 4 pixels for deck height. So (469/695)*4 ylelds 2.6954 meters (8.86 feet) deck to deck. That is a bit tight, but not severe. When I do these I usually determine number of decks looking at 3.5 to 4 meters deck to deck, whatever in that range can fit the exterior clues.

I hope you don't mind, I borowed it and scaled it with a 6' Spock:


It looks too small to me. Considering the complex ceilings that Trek sets usually have, and that there probably needs to be room for machinery between decks (has Trek deck thickness ever been established?), I think 777.7m (which perfectly fits the tiny bridge/lounge dome added on top for STVI and matches the bridge set itself) is the correct size.
I don't know. It looks passable to me. The newer ships have more ceiling space, plus conduit space between decks.
LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2011, 11:46 PM   #20
STR
Captain
 
STR's Avatar
 
Location: Out there. Thatta way.
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
has Trek deck thickness ever been established?)
No, and I've always found it odd that people try to make every deck identical in height, when no ship or building is like that in real life. Most hi-rise buildings have 4 or 5 different slab heights (Empire State Building has a dozen somewhat standard heights ranging from 11' to 21'4.5", exluding some areas which generally aren't considered floors (those range down to 5' high)). Naval ships are built to whatever they can fit around the machinery and store rooms.
__________________
An egotist is someone more interested in himself than me.
STR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2011, 11:53 PM   #21
Cicero
Admiral
 
Cicero's Avatar
 
Location: The City of Destiny
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

The thickness of two decks of the Enterprise-B can be seen during the long shot of the damaged ship in Generations. The usable height of the decks shown also appears to be less than that of the bridge. (The height difference can actually be seen when Harriman is making his way to the damaged section a few moments before.)
__________________
Ad majorem futuri gloriam.
Cicero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 12:06 AM   #22
Vincent Law
Lieutenant Commander
 
Vincent Law's Avatar
 
Location: Romdo
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Isn't one of the major scaling issues of the Excelsior class due to the change in bridge module from STIII to STVI?
__________________
"Just remember this, some day I'm going to pull that trigger. So, can you still love me knowing that?" - Re-l Mayer
Ergo Proxy
Vincent Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 01:17 AM   #23
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

LCARS 24 wrote: View Post
KingDaniel wrote: View Post
^Thanks 9-10' was what I guestimated.

LCARS 24 wrote: View Post
You cite the Excelsior class. Okay, here's a cross section where the length of 469 meters is shown in 695 pixels, with 4 pixels for deck height. So (469/695)*4 ylelds 2.6954 meters (8.86 feet) deck to deck. That is a bit tight, but not severe. When I do these I usually determine number of decks looking at 3.5 to 4 meters deck to deck, whatever in that range can fit the exterior clues.

I hope you don't mind, I borowed it and scaled it with a 6' Spock:


It looks too small to me. Considering the complex ceilings that Trek sets usually have, and that there probably needs to be room for machinery between decks (has Trek deck thickness ever been established?), I think 777.7m (which perfectly fits the tiny bridge/lounge dome added on top for STVI and matches the bridge set itself) is the correct size.
I don't know. It looks passable to me. The newer ships have more ceiling space, plus conduit space between decks.
I think he's right.
I've had the same concerns after doing the LCARS for my ship. 2.7 meter 0r 9 feet is good for ceiling height but not for deck height. In some places even another meter is insufficient to accommodate the Lattice work of structure beams and Sections a ship like this would be made of.

But that's what makes it fiction and I can let some of it pass.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 05:12 AM   #24
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
Here's the 2009 Enterprise stuff, supporting a 1200 meter size

But my original point is this: Why fudge at all? Why not just say Excelsior is 700-777m, the refit Enterprise ~350m, nuEnterprise 1200m, etc.? Has anyone considered that the last few technical manuals may have sold a little better if the statistics matched what was on-screen in Star Trek, especially in an age where we've got the technology to easily spot a bogus figure?
Ironically, I recently figured out that the 2009 Enterprise could have approximately the same deck structure as the TMP refit, provided you established the deck height at about 5-6 meters and built the ship's interiors to fit those. In that case a "deck" wouldn't be a physical space for the crew but a subdivision in which a portion of the internal structure is positioned, much like "frames" on modern naval vessels. A single deck may have multiple levels and multiple compartments for different purposes and not all of them need be habitable; the ENGINEERING decks would be mostly high bays with catwalks and ladders wrapped around the machinery for the engines and power systems.

After all, it's a starship, not a hotel. Why should we assume the deck height and internal arrangement is necessarily arranged to fit the crew's expectations? If anything, the crew should be trained to find their way around a starship.

Anyway, the way I figured it a 700 meter Enterprise seems to fit reasonably well as far as I can tell (I figured it with a 6' bridge window, though). I do agree that fitting the shuttles is slightly awkward at that scale and works better at 1200 meters. OTOH, I did a good deal of work a couple of years ago on some modeling for the SDF-Macross--which is also supposed to be about 1200 meters--and I vividly remember being very confused about how easy it was to fit something as large as a Valkyie into the seemingly puny launch doors of the ARMD platforms. The thing to remember here--as you have clearly discovered yourself--is that it's hard to tell how things "fit" into an object if you're looking at a very small picture of it. I think those shuttlecraft would fit alot better if we were looking at it in a much larger scale.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 08:54 AM   #25
LCARS 24
Commodore
 
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

From John Eaves regarding the NYFST E:

LCARS 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 08:55 AM   #26
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

scotpens wrote: View Post
We saw in Trek TOS that the dome at the aft end of the engineering hull is a flashing navigational beacon. Whose idea was it to put a control room under there?
I believe the first time it was put forward was by Geoffrey Mandel and Doug Drexler in the U.S.S. Enterprise Officer's Manual (page 43). I don't recall the idea before seeing it in that book.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 09:02 AM   #27
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

STR wrote: View Post
KingDaniel wrote: View Post
has Trek deck thickness ever been established?)
No, and I've always found it odd that people try to make every deck identical in height, when no ship or building is like that in real life. Most hi-rise buildings have 4 or 5 different slab heights (Empire State Building has a dozen somewhat standard heights ranging from 11' to 21'4.5", exluding some areas which generally aren't considered floors (those range down to 5' high)). Naval ships are built to whatever they can fit around the machinery and store rooms.
This.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 04:22 PM   #28
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

It's Hollywood, people. We all know that the sets in every show were shot sans-ceilings, so trying to say that "well we see at least 50 feet of call, topped with cinderblock" isn't going to help your case in scaling.

My next project will be to figure out what phase of the moon is required for some arse to defend the huge NuEnterprise by saying that all ships, ever, of any type, are really the size of small planets. Right now it's waxing gibbous.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 09:30 PM   #29
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Although that's true, ceilings were seen on at least 2 occasions:




Hmmm, just plain white ceilings. I wonder where the lights are?
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2011, 04:14 AM   #30
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Hmmm, just plain white ceilings. I wonder where the lights are?
I just get a kick out of the fact that they dropped in ceilings just for each shot. (The shooting angle is unusual on each, so they threw in ENOUGH of a ceiling for the shot - no lights, etc.)

If you're going to cite this, though, it does put deck height around 8' for the habitation decks.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
ship sizes

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 06:42 AM.

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