RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,747
Posts: 5,433,184
Members: 24,838
Currently online: 422
Newest member: Mei'konda

TrekToday headlines

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek 3 To Being Shooting Next Year
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17


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 24 2008, 09:21 PM   #16
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Aircraft carriers also pay attention to quality of life isssues as well the launch/landing cycles. Russian carriers are designed to fight for themselves with air defense systems and a dozen economy size surface to surface missiles suitable for sinking an American carrier.
On long missions, the Typhon had a swimming pool, a suana and a small pet zoo to make a six month mission bearable.
So how is the Enterprise different?
I'm not changing vessel proportions, just the dimensions to accomodate crews on long missions and JJ's desire for a vast ship.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2008, 09:46 PM   #17
Nightfall to-Ennien
Lieutenant Commander
 
Nightfall to-Ennien's Avatar
 
Location: The Everfree Forest
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

I do believe the question to ask is why? What gives the impression that the Enterprise, at well over a quarter of a kilometer long, is not large enough to house every sort of facility that the crew would need to perform their mission with a reasonable quality of life? I mean, if they've got a bloody bowling alley in there somewhere, I have trouble imagining them having any sort of shortage in space...
__________________
On the Starship Enterprise, no one is alone. No one.
Nightfall to-Ennien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2008, 12:56 AM   #18
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

That shuttlebay trailer scene started this. The doors to the shuttlebay were 60 feet wide and 30 feet high but to accomodate two rows of shuttles with a taxiway (?) in between you need more space and that reminded me of all that time spent on a larger ship. Double the dimensions increases hull skin area by factor of four and interior volume by factor of eight.

Now we have room for bowling alleys, Olympic standard swimming pools and all matter of creature comforts as well as more power generating and using important machinery for the long missions, which call for creature comforts ala typhoon ballistic missle subs and Kursts giant cruise missiles carriers for USN aircraft carrier killing.

A note about the deflector dish, use it as a weapon for space to ground bombardment since the aperture is so much larger than a phaser. Ship to ship, I don't know.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2008, 02:12 AM   #19
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 shuttlebay trailer scene started this. The doors to the shuttlebay were 60 feet wide and 30 feet high but to accomodate two rows of shuttles with a taxiway (?) in between you need more space and that reminded me of all that time spent on a larger ship. Double the dimensions increases hull skin area by factor of four and interior volume by factor of eight.
We don't even KNOW that that's the shuttlebay. In fact, the light coming from the top and sides seems more visually consistent with sunlight than with artificial lighting IMO.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2008, 03:20 AM   #20
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

That is what it seems to be and the sunlight could be an artifical lighting method that reproduces sunlight accurately for crew health.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2008, 06:54 AM   #21
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 is what it seems to be and the sunlight could be an artifical lighting method that reproduces sunlight accurately for crew health.
That's ludicrous. If that were the case, this lighting technique would be used all over the ship. I find it hard to believe that they'd sunlight just the shuttlebay and not habitated crew sections.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2008, 12:49 PM   #22
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

And how do we know that artifical sunlight isn't used in other areas of the ship where people congregate such as the gym, rec room. miniforest, swimming pool while working areas use more 'industrial' light. And it should be remembered that today's submarines employ colors designed to soothe like green.
But the real issue remains, could all SF ships have double their original dimensions with the eightfold volume increase without throwing out every model either real or CGI out and replacing them or could it be done as a modification. Meannwhile, the First Federation and the Borg will have the monopoly on Really big ships.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2008, 12:57 PM   #23
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

But we have very good reason from the described plot of the movie to believe that this is not the shuttlebay of a starship!

That is, the plot involves Cadets Kirk and McCoy shuttling up to a starship from Academy grounds, and this scene seems to show the starting point of that journey, not the endpoint. Note the instructor there giving the roll call, and distributing personnel to different shuttles no doubt headed to different ships. That hangar must be down in San Francisco...

Also, doubling the size of the known ships without changing their shape isn't an option, due to the visibility of things like window rows and doorways. Inserting subtly or completely different ships could be done, but to what aim? The ships are too big to begin with, with so much interior room that the camera can never visit it all - and in the case of the E-D far too much of it to explain how more than two people out of a crew of mere thousand can be seen in the same shot.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2008, 02:09 PM   #24
Ghrakh
Commander
 
Ghrakh's Avatar
 
Location: NCC-01701
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

I'm with the view that this isn't the Enterprise shuttlebay but a ground-based hanger. The structure looks like a real hangar. Also, I don't recall if shuttles flew inside a shuttlebay with people standing there..wouldn't the shuttlebay get decompressed to allow the doors to open?
Ghrakh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2008, 02:29 PM   #25
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
westwords2020 wrote: View Post
That shuttlebay trailer scene started this. The doors to the shuttlebay were 60 feet wide and 30 feet high but to accomodate two rows of shuttles with a taxiway (?) in between you need more space and that reminded me of all that time spent on a larger ship. Double the dimensions increases hull skin area by factor of four and interior volume by factor of eight.
We don't even KNOW that that's the shuttlebay. In fact, the light coming from the top and sides seems more visually consistent with sunlight than with artificial lighting IMO.
And those are cadets in that scene, not crewmen. If the scene descriptions are right, that hangar is on the ground, and the shuttles are departing to different ships for the cadet's first mission.

EDIT: As a bunch of people already said...
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2008, 08:20 PM   #26
Anticitizen
Fleet Captain
 
Anticitizen's Avatar
 
Location: Black Mesa Research Facility
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

The only beef I have with the apparent dimensions of the original Enterprise is the depiction of the apparently gigantic rec room in TMP. It appears to be about three stories tall, the size of a basketball court, and apparently only contains some square futons and a few video games. Quite the waste of space for a ship of that size.
Anticitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2008, 11:45 PM   #27
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

I was over at navweaps.com and they quoted the largest supertanker as being 1500 feet long and 225 feet wide. It would appear that Starfleet is operating smaller ships than can be built here on Earth with present technology.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2008, 11:59 PM   #28
kv1at3485
Commodore
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

So what?
kv1at3485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2008, 01:54 AM   #29
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

Let the First Federation and the Borg and those other chumps have their superships. Death does come in a thousand cuts, does it not?
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2008, 01:58 AM   #30
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

So there is no bar to larger Starfleet ships, at least technically.
The number of decks is doubled, the distant one travels from one side of the rim to the other is doubled.
But the main problem is the established shapes of certain areas which might have to be changed.
If so, change them how? And into what form? A bridge with doubled dimensions becomes more expansive and has a much higher ceiling. Could we live with that?
westwords2020 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 09:33 AM.

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