RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,784
Posts: 5,217,498
Members: 24,217
Currently online: 750
Newest member: davestar057

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


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 26 2008, 02:01 AM   #31
kv1at3485
Commodore
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

So now that you can't justify the ballooning on visual evidence, you're back to: "Because they can."

Then again, why not? I can see Starfleet going with such vacuous reasoning.
kv1at3485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2008, 02:06 AM   #32
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

kv1at3485 wrote: View Post
So now that you can't justify the ballooning on visual evidence, you're back to: "Because they can."

Then again, why not? I can see Starfleet going with such vacuous reasoning.
Obviously, Tim Taylor would have to be the new director of the ASDB
__________________
"I've eaten breakfast cereals tougher than you! For reference, they were the ones with little marshmellows in them."
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2008, 02:16 AM   #33
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
 
Location: An "American" in Friedrichshafen, Deutschland
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Anticitizen wrote: View Post
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.
"This Rec Deck interior was three, perhaps four times the size of the Enterprise's former recreation area, before the redesign - and this without including the exercise rooms and new sports areas adjoining it. There were many (none of them deep-space veterans) who thought this new design a wasteful preoccupation with games and sociability. But those whose space experience was numbered in years knew that the function served here was as necessary to a starship as its engines. Here the most vital of the ship's mechanisms was kept in peak operating efficiency through music, song, games, debate, exercise, competition, friendship, romance, sex - the list was as endless as human ingenuity itself. Companionship and community were as basic to life support as oxygen and food. To those who might spend years of their life in this vessel, this place was their village square, their park, library, café, family table, their mall, meeting hall, and much more." - Star Trek: The Motion Picture by Gene Roddenberry (Simon & Schuster, 1979).

TGT
GodThingFormerly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2008, 04:52 AM   #34
FalTorPan
Vice Admiral
 
FalTorPan's Avatar
 
Location: Out there... thataway.
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

One thing that I love about TMP is the care that went into the designs of the film. To an extent unrivaled before or since, an effort was made to make the Enterprise seem as much as possible like a "real" starship.
__________________
Watch ASTRONUTS! Visit Trekplace! Check out my personal website!
FalTorPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2008, 08:13 AM   #35
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

...Although for a large part, the different components of that ship were designed separately, and often to cross-purposes, so that the task of integrating them into something resembling a ship-shaped object, let alone a working starship, was immense.

As for the size of the rec room, TOS already makes mention of rec facilities up to "Rec Room 6", and indicates that Rec Room 3 is at least three stories tall. TAS shows a giant virtual reality bay as being part of the rec facilities - perhaps replacing most of the previous facilities, or at least the big Room 3. Perhaps this cavern is later replaced by the TMP facility - or perhaps the asymmetrically placed TMP rec hall is paired with a holodeck on the port side of the saucer, a windowless facility?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26 2008, 11:18 PM   #36
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

When the Enterprise was concieved by Matt Jefferies, she was comparable in size to an aircraft carrier of that period but now many years have passed and the ship undergoing many changes as technogy advanced. As evidence by the supertanker, Enterprise and Starfeet dimensions are small and it comes down to my correcting that with appropiate adjustment to hullform for a ship double sized in every dimension and so does anyone at all support that action or am I just a loner out here?
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2008, 05:42 AM   #37
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

westwords2020 wrote: View Post
When the Enterprise was concieved by Matt Jefferies, she was comparable in size to an aircraft carrier of that period but now many years have passed and the ship undergoing many changes as technogy advanced. As evidence by the supertanker, Enterprise and Starfeet dimensions are small and it comes down to my correcting that with appropiate adjustment to hullform for a ship double sized in every dimension and so does anyone at all support that action or am I just a loner out here?
Correcting implies fault. And just because tankers and cargo ships get bigger, it doesn't follow that all ships get bigger. You proceed from a false assumption.
__________________
* * *
“The absence of limitations is the enemy of art.”
― Orson Welles
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2008, 09:29 AM   #38
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Indeed, shouldn't we actually be shrinking the Trek ships a lot? They are way too big, they waste resources, they don't fit into tight spaces, they get lousy mileage... Surely one could pack 430 crew into a ship just 500 feet long, rather than the wasteful 1,000? Today's technology allows us to miniaturize many things; future technology should logically lead to even greater miniaturization.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2008, 04:30 PM   #39
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Aircraft carriers are the same size now as they were when Jefferies created the Enterprise. They're heavier, but dimensionally, the Nimitzes are about 1,000 feet long, and so was the CVN-65 Enterprise.

Why would you bring up the size of freighters and tankers compared to carriers? They don't exactly have the same mission profiles.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2008, 07:15 PM   #40
Guartho
Rear Admiral
 
Guartho's Avatar
 
Location: Guartho
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Supertankers have an entirely different purpose. Why are we discussing them at all?

The miniCooper is a great example of engineering. I therefore conclude that the new Enterprise should be no bigger than todays mid-sized SUVs.
__________________
"I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell." RIP, Red Ranger

(AKA "Mr. Donkey Kong King" for no apparent reason)
Guartho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27 2008, 08:17 PM   #41
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Tankers are actually not getting bigger, there has been more interest in smaller ones, there hasn't been a ship the size of Jahre Viking (Knox Knevis) and the Batillus class since the 70's/80's out of those only Jahre Viking still remains.

Jahre Viking isn't allowed to sail the seas anymore partially because of her size and also because she's a single hulled tanker.

As for size... well she is enormous.
260,941 GT
214,793 NT
Length: 458.45 m (1,504.10 ft)
Beam: 68.8 m (225.72 ft)
Draft: 29.8 m (97.77 ft)
Capacity: 564,650 DWT

As for why she was so big, only one answer: greed a 100.000 ton tanker doesn't need 10 times the engine power of a 10.000 ton tanker, also the larger tankers get the more efficient they get in tems of water resistance and the like.

I wonder if this all goes for starships as well especially warp power and so on, does a Galaxy which is about 6-8 times as big as a Connie need 6-8 times the amount of power to reach the same speeds or less like 4-5 times?
__________________
"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
Old November 28 2008, 05:12 PM   #42
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

It's actually 3.757 times.










I made that up. Just now.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2008, 08:20 PM   #43
KlingonPredator
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
KlingonPredator's Avatar
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

According to a line uttered by Kirk in TOS,the Enterprise weighed one million tons...more than any supertanker ever conceived. It was an episode in which they were losing the dilithuim crystals and had to get more to keep the engines operating...Mudds women maybe?
KlingonPredator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2008, 09:59 PM   #44
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Close to a million gross tons... That makes 300,000 tons apiece.

...Yes, that's the episode. It seems doubtful that the whole ship would be dense enough to yield that sort of total mass, so probably some parts of it are superdense. Possibly the warp engines? (Or the junior navigator?)

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2008, 10:14 PM   #45
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

That's a million tons of inertial mass?
Ronald Held 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 01:28 AM.

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