The Trek BBS statistics

Posts: 5,946,451
Members: 26,484
Currently online: 394

 The Trek BBS Starship Size Argument™ thread

 Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

May 1 2013, 11:49 PM   #1
WarpFactorZ
Captain

 TheCutestofBorg wrote: The size the actual enterprise is is not much bigger than 2-3 space shuttles.
The space shuttle is 37m long. The original Enterprise is about 300m long. That's 8 space shuttle lengths, not 2-3. In the usual vernacular, the Enterprise is "3 football fields" in length.

 May 2 2013, 12:05 AM #2 TheCutestofBorg Lieutenant Junior Grade Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster Not by the size of the windows and what is shown on screen. The Engineering hull is maybe twice the size of a nuclear sub. And the saucer section is maybe about the same size. By the time they cram in ships systems and everything needed to run the ship there cannot be much room left. And if you go by the 1st Abrhams movie Star Trek 2/3rds of the engineering hull is a shuttle bay that looks to be at most 30-40 feet high...
May 2 2013, 12:38 AM   #3
WarpFactorZ
Captain

Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster

 TheCutestofBorg wrote: Not by the size of the windows and what is shown on screen. The Engineering hull is maybe twice the size of a nuclear sub.
How can you tell? Do subs have windows? Besides, Wiki gives the Ohio class dimensions as 170m x 13m. The dimensions given for the Enterprise's nacelles are almost identical. The hull is therefore much bigger.

You're also considering only linear size, not volume. Taken as a cylinder, it's volume would be 22,500 cubic metres. The engineering hull is about 100m long and 40m across. The volume of the corresponding cylinder is 125,600 cubic metres -- 5.5 times as big.

 By the time they cram in ships systems and everything needed to run the ship there cannot be much room left.
Since we don't know anything about the "size" of things required to run a starship, it's hard to judge this statement.

 And if you go by the 1st Abrhams movie ...
I try not to. (and it's 'Abrams', not 'Abrhams')

May 2 2013, 01:04 AM   #4
King Daniel Beyond

Location: Beyond the Darkness
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster

 TheCutestofBorg wrote: Not by the size of the windows and what is shown on screen. The Engineering hull is maybe twice the size of a nuclear sub. And the saucer section is maybe about the same size. By the time they cram in ships systems and everything needed to run the ship there cannot be much room left.
Here's a look inside the old TV series Enterprise:

The specs say she's 23 stories tall and 289 meters from end to end.
 And if you go by the 1st Abrhams movie Star Trek 2/3rds of the engineering hull is a shuttle bay that looks to be at most 30-40 feet high...
Each of the shuttlecraft in Abrams' first movie is 40 feet long. And there were a LOT of them parked in there. That Enterprise is a lot bigger than the original:

This Enterprise is a whopping 725 meters in length.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

 May 2 2013, 01:21 AM #5 WarpFactorZ Captain Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster King: why do you always compare 2009 Enterprise pics with 1966 Enterprise pics? You immediately handicap the latter by its limited budget, special effects, and the fact the production crew could care less whether the model matched the sets. Why not take pics from the movies where the viewscreen is bigger, the shuttle bay / cargo section is bigger, engineering is bigger, etc...?
May 2 2013, 02:54 AM   #6
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.

Location: Terra Inlandia

If you're going to have an argument about the size of any starship, or about the comparative sizes of any two or more starships, please do it in here, so as to avoid the disruption of so many other threads with said argument.
Attached Images
 starship_argument.jpg (28.3 KB, 37 views)
__________________
Always acknowledge a fault frankly. This will throw those in authority
off their guard and give you opportunity to commit more.
~ Mark Twain

Last edited by M'Sharak; May 2 2013 at 03:11 AM.

May 2 2013, 03:00 AM   #7
WarpFactorZ
Captain

 M'Sharak wrote: If you're going to have an argument about the size of any starship, or about the comparative sizes of any two or more starships, please do it in here, so as to avoid the disruption of so many other threads with said argument.
OK, thanks!

 May 2 2013, 03:14 AM #8 The Keeper Commodore     Location: Where Reality Ends and Illusion Begins Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread Concerning the shuttle bay comparisons in KD img collection, are those beams, apparently holding up the ceiling really necessary? They cause what could have been a decent new shuttle bay design appear clumsy and cluttered. IMO, of course.
May 2 2013, 04:14 AM   #9

Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster

 WarpFactorZ wrote: King: why do you always compare 2009 Enterprise pics with 1966 Enterprise pics? You immediately handicap the latter by its limited budget, special effects, and the fact the production crew could care less whether the model matched the sets. Why not take pics from the movies where the viewscreen is bigger, the shuttle bay / cargo section is bigger, engineering is bigger, etc...?
Oh come on, it wouldn't kill you to do minimal research. How can you complain about this stuff without knowing anything about it?

The TMP Enterprise was built to a scale about sixty feet longer than the TOS ship. The bridge set is about four feet wider in diameter than the set used on television. Yes, the main viewer is built to a wider aspect ratio than the TV version, but it's not substantially larger.

IOW, he could substitute pictures of the movie ship for the pictures of the TOS ship and it would make no significant difference. He's not "handicapping" anything.

 May 2 2013, 05:20 AM #10 WarpFactorZ Captain Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread Browsing through the archives, I found the following thread: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=119751&page=13 Didn't read through the whole thing, but based on those images, I could fit a big fucking "brewery" in that space -- particularly if the entire secondary hull is devoted to engineering + shuttle bay.
 May 2 2013, 05:28 AM #11 Woulfe Commodore     Location: 3rd Rock From The Sun Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread Didn't we have this same argument for the LAST film ? Didn't it just lead in a great big circle as ILM just seemed to change the scale scene to scene in the 2009 film ? Yet here we are again
 May 2 2013, 05:44 AM #12 RAMA Vice Admiral     Location: NJ, USA Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread It was solved ages ago. They made the ship roughly the same size as the old one. It didn't look "big" enough on screen, so they upscaled it. It's at least 700 meters long, possibly close to 800. That's it, end of story. RAMA __________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities".
 May 2 2013, 09:38 AM #13 Captain Rob Commodore Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread Hmmm. Only 12 posts in this thread. I guess the odometer for this thread finally rolled over. Next up is the Battlestar Vengeance that's five miles long. Or for you SW fans: "That's no moon. It's a starship." __________________ Regal Entertainment Group murdered United Artists
May 2 2013, 11:14 AM   #14
SonicRanger

Location: Minneapolis, MN

 TheCutestofBorg wrote: The size the actual enterprise is is not much bigger than 2-3 space shuttles.
The "actual" Enterprise? No, the only spaceship Enterprise is exactly 1 space shuttle in size.
__________________
"STAR TREK is... Action - Adventure - Science Fiction."
-- Gene Roddenberry, 1964, top of the first page of his original pitch and outline for Star Trek

May 2 2013, 12:08 PM   #15
Kpnuts
Commodore

Location: London

 TheCutestofBorg wrote: The size the actual enterprise is is not much bigger than 2-3 space shuttles.
Take a moment to think about what you just said.

(hint: it's more like 21 space shuttles in length)

 Bookmarks

 Tags argument, size, starship