RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,892
Posts: 5,330,194
Members: 24,555
Currently online: 529
Newest member: berlyn

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 22 2013, 06:23 PM   #961
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

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.

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...
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 06:29 PM   #962
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post

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...
But it's not 300-pound Trek fans who have to run/climb that distance, its physically conditioned military officers.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 06:43 PM   #963
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
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.
Although 725m is the perfect fit for the bridge and atrium. Any smaller and the rooms overlap. Doesn't that alone preclude the ship being any smaller?
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...
Just over a third of the Enterprise's length is her nacelles. Kirk and Scotty ran from the atrium in the saucer centre to engineering, which is behind the huge shuttlebay. I'd guess a 400m trek, tops?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 07:05 PM   #964
drt
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
That seems pretty consistent with the screencap; I think the nuEnterprise just has a lot more non-deck space above and below the two decks that go out to the rim than we're used to from previous Enterprises.

Heh, I was watching TMP earlier in the week, that Rec Deck set seems like it would fit perfectly into this Enterprise (since it's almost three decks high and doesn't have an undercut).
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 07:16 PM   #965
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

drt wrote: View Post

That seems pretty consistent with the screencap;
No it doesn't. The windows in that diagram are essentially the height of the corridor itself (i.e. the same size as the hull breach). But they clearly are about 1/3 of the corridor height, tops, since in the intact windows we can see maybe one row of the "cells" on the wall. A bigger window would show the entire opposite wall.

King Daniel has shrunk the corridor to fit his desired ship size.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 07:39 PM   #966
drt
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The corridor heights from the screencap appear to fit the drawing.

It seems from what Gep posted there is room for three decks out to the edge, but they're offset so that it's two decks at the edge with a half-deck above and below.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 09:07 PM   #967
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
drt wrote: View Post

That seems pretty consistent with the screencap;
No it doesn't. The windows in that diagram are essentially the height of the corridor itself (i.e. the same size as the hull breach). But they clearly are about 1/3 of the corridor height, tops, since in the intact windows we can see maybe one row of the "cells" on the wall. A bigger window would show the entire opposite wall.

King Daniel has shrunk the corridor to fit his desired ship size.
Are you sure about that?

Green lines are all the same height
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 09:19 PM   #968
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Huh. That works surprisingly well.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 09:32 PM   #969
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
[
Are you sure about that?

Green lines are all the same height
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.

Sorry, this bit of evidence is quite strongly against the 700m ship theory.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 09:41 PM   #970
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

There are no decks above and below, just a lot of deck-size dead space. Look at the side-view cross section.

The saucer rim has two decks with a gap between them (blue line) and additional space above and below that's almost but not quite enough room to fit full decks into.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 09:43 PM   #971
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
[
Are you sure about that?

Green lines are all the same height
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.
Only the ones with "DECK" written on them are decks - see the diagram in the corner? And in between the ones labelled "DECK" are those between deck spaces, just like the diagram in the corner.
And furthermore, the green line you show at the very bottom doesn't line up with the corridor either.
It's not supposed to.
Sorry, this bit of evidence is quite strongly against the 700m ship theory.
I disagree. And I have diagrams to prove it.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

Last edited by King Daniel Into Darkness; August 22 2013 at 10:13 PM.
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 10:13 PM   #972
The Keeper
Commodore
 
The Keeper's Avatar
 
Location: Where reality ends and illusion begins
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
There are no decks above and below, just a lot of deck-size dead space. Look at the side-view cross section.

The saucer rim has two decks with a gap between them (blue line) and additional space above and below that's almost but not quite enough room to fit full decks into.
Space for phaser/thruster mechanisms.
The Keeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 10:22 PM   #973
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The Keeper wrote: View Post
Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
There are no decks above and below, just a lot of deck-size dead space. Look at the side-view cross section.

The saucer rim has two decks with a gap between them (blue line) and additional space above and below that's almost but not quite enough room to fit full decks into.
Space for phaser/thruster mechanisms.
Jefferies tube, various ship systems. Most everything machinery wise in the Reboot-Verse is bigger and more bulky than we're used to, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they need more room for basic equipment.

As for walking a 700+ meter length. A Nimitz class carrier is ~340 meters long. The deck crews work the length of deck hours at a time. Just one trip from the end to end and back is the length of the Enterprise--that's one deck. Some of these officers and men on a regular basis without the aid of antigravs, turbolifts, all the nice kit and gadget the Enterprise has. The when you consider half or more of that 700+ meter starship is nacelles, then the numbers of the internal size dial down a lot.



So the ship proper, discounting the larger nacelles, is actually in the same range as the refit Enterprise. The Nacelles just scale up the number cause their larger.

And remember, not every deck of the ~491 meters of proper ship is full length decks.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)

Last edited by SeerSGB; August 22 2013 at 10:49 PM.
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 02:01 AM   #974
ComicGuy89
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

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
ComicGuy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 03:29 AM   #975
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

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"
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
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 03:51 PM.

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