RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,067
Posts: 5,432,129
Members: 24,926
Currently online: 524
Newest member: wod_freak

TrekToday headlines

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Beltran Introduces Shakespeare To Theater Group
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Burton To Be Honored at Facets Boo! Bash
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


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 November 23 2008, 03:30 PM   #1
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Up sizing the movie Enterprise

The TOS Enterprise seems a bit small so I propose doubling the ship's size in height, length and width. That would give you four saucer rim decks instead of two and allow all this expanse that the movie would show and still be smaller than Enterprise D. It works out to an 800 foot diameter saucer rim a 680 foot plus secondary hull and an overall length of about 1900-2000 feet. In view of the huge size of the hangar deck, scaling up seems to make sense to me.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2008, 03:51 PM   #2
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
 
Location: An "American" in Friedrichshafen, Deutschland
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

westwords2020 wrote: View Post
The TOS Enterprise seems a bit small so I propose doubling the ship's size in height, length and width.
The original NCC-1701 was correctly sized for its intended mission, as two (some say three) seasons of TOS made perfectly evident.

TGT
GodThingFormerly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2008, 05:15 PM   #3
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

It's kinda too late to resize something that's already existed in its current state for 30 years, ain't it? What are you gonna do, go back and redo the effects in six movies just for the hell of it?

Besides, she was already plenty big enough.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2008, 05:20 PM   #4
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

No, I had been thinking along these lines for many years and an exact doubling of dimensions would not be apparent except, I think, in a closeup shot of the saucer rim or other features due to the greater number of windows making a greater number of decks. As for onscreen years ago, their were few closeups and no dialogue to indicate ship sizing.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2008, 06:06 PM   #5
JNG
Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

westwords2020 wrote: View Post
No, I had been thinking along these lines for many years and an exact doubling of dimensions would not be apparent except, I think, in a closeup shot of the saucer rim or other features due to the greater number of windows making a greater number of decks. As for onscreen years ago, their were few closeups and no dialogue to indicate ship sizing.
So we will vastly increase the ship's volume, causing it to dwarf later ships, confusing the heck out of the bridge scale and the TMP hull-walking scene on the refit and lots of other things, ignoring the onscreen sizing in feet from "The Enterprise Incident," but it mostly won't be apparent. Well, I think everyone will immediately see how sensible this is.


------> ------>
JNG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2008, 08:28 PM   #6
JuanBolio
Admiral
 
JuanBolio's Avatar
 
Location: Florida Keys, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Why does it need to be bigger?
__________________
Never fear! JuanBolio wuz here!

This has been an official JuanBolio post. You are now stronger, smarter, and a better human being for having read it. Congratulations.
JuanBolio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2008, 08:31 PM   #7
kv1at3485
Commodore
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

So that it can separate into ten gazillion little independent ships!

(You know this is where it's going...)
kv1at3485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2008, 10:52 PM   #8
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

The TOS ship was dimensioned correctly for its main mission. Why rescaling it, since, at least, it causes problems with the sizes of the rest of the future Enterprises.
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2008, 02:56 AM   #9
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

The Enterprise is about the correct size for it's mission. I already did some examining of this.
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2008, 03:57 AM   #10
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

The entire fleet would have to be resized. As for the Enterprise, the ST XI saucer is 800 feet in diameter on a vessel capable of galatic exploration. A Galaxy class is 1500 feet by 1000 foot saucer model and around 2100 feet long so it remains much bigger in volume and in saucer with then an upscaled Enterprise. I took one look at that shuttlebay's enormous size and figured the whole ship must be upscaled to account for that scene and the impression JJ Abrams wants to create of a vast ship.The upscaled Enterprise is bigger than the biggest supertanker but so what?
It is a big ship.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2008, 04:13 AM   #11
Lyon_Wonder
Commander
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

The 1701-A in TFF has a Deck 78, and can travel to the center of the galaxy!
Lyon_Wonder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2008, 04:42 AM   #12
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

That was a big mistake on the Final Frontier as you pointed out. Ent-E had some deck numbering problems.
Doubling the size of everything leads to an eightfold increase in volume and perhaps weight also but the sizing is not beyond even today's technology in building supersized sea going cities that were proposed.
By that standard, Ent is small. It needs to be bigger without changing the proportions of the vessel.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2008, 06:22 AM   #13
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

westwords2020 wrote: View Post
That was a big mistake on the Final Frontier as you pointed out. Ent-E had some deck numbering problems.
Doubling the size of everything leads to an eightfold increase in volume and perhaps weight also but the sizing is not beyond even today's technology in building supersized sea going cities that were proposed.
By that standard, Ent is small. It needs to be bigger without changing the proportions of the vessel.
But we're not talking about a CITY.

It's the size it is because it is.

It's like saying "Well, if I increased the size of my Hummmer H2 by a factor of 2, I'd have more room."
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2008, 08:03 AM   #14
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Tell that to the crew of an aircraft carrier. They are floating and self propelling craft with 5000 plus crew in what can only be a floating city and larger structures are also possible such as my favourite, the Mobile Offshore Base that by having several 1000 by 300 foot modules joined together can operate conventional and not just carrier capable aircraft. A Hummer that was scaled up by a factor of two would be a very large vehicle also with over 12 foot length and perhaps 50 feet long and sitting some 3-4 people above the ground clearance. It would be mine resistant if the skin was double thickness also.
Does a larger Ent matter? Yes it does for Star Trek was built upon science fiction and such facts that were known in the 1960s when industry could build a 1092 foot long carrier with a flight deck 256 feet wide on the sponnsonns and a hull beam of 134 feet. I know it's a big jump to an 800 foot saucer with 24 decks or 48 plus decks overall but it is not that big of a jump when skyscraper volumes are also counted.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2008, 02:55 PM   #15
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Aircraft carriers are as big as they need to be and not the slightest bit larger, the military would be happier if you told them that the damn thing could be smaller if it wouldn't impair operations on board.
__________________
"Sword is personal, brings slicing to a man, you getta that personal feedback, nuclear weapons?.. Meh, goes off big bang and you don't get any feeling.."
Santaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 03:37 AM.

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