RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,602
Posts: 5,424,942
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 409
Newest member: David Ellerman

TrekToday headlines

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12


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 29 2008, 10:44 AM   #46
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Depends on what kind if tonnage was used I guess, was it gross register tonnage, net tonnage, deadweight tonnage or displacement?
__________________
"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 29 2008, 04:48 PM   #47
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

A starship would not be bounded by the limits of a supertanker though it does serve to illustrate just how big an ocean going vessel can be built with current technology.
As for the aircraft carrier, a design study postulated an ultra large carrier with 1500 feet in length and enough width so that the island was in the center with launch/recovery on either side of the Island and plenty of space above and in the hangar for aircraft stowage. As the Mobile Offshore Base will not be built then we shhould look at the Ultra Large Carrier even if USN bases have to be dregged to accomodate it and a special drydock built for construction and repair. The current Newport News Dock Ten is 1500 plus feet long, I think.
The point of all this speculation is to support the concept of a vast ship that Abrams desires but our upsized Ent. will require changes to the model to allow for the size boost.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2008, 04:51 PM   #48
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

'Twas Scotty said that, in Mudd's Women.

"Almost a million gross tons of vessel..."
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2008, 06:17 PM   #49
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

^^Gross Tonnage is a unitless index related to a ship's overall internal volume, Neither Gross Tonnage nor Gross Register Tonnage are measures of the ship's displacement (mass).

I guess that will make everyones headache even bigger, as for the usual accepted 190.000 tons, that does IMO fits nice into the ballpark when it comes to the mass of the ship.
__________________
"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.."

Last edited by Santaman; November 29 2008 at 08:53 PM.
Santaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30 2008, 04:50 PM   #50
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Santaman wrote: View Post
^^Gross Tonnage is a unitless index related to a ship's overall internal volume, Neither Gross Tonnage nor Gross Register Tonnage are measures of the ship's displacement (mass).

I guess that will make everyones headache even bigger, as for the usual accepted 190.000 tons, that does IMO fits nice into the ballpark when it comes to the mass of the ship.
Yes, that always does give me a headache.

190,000 tons always worked well for me - roughly twice the weight of the aircraft carrier Enterprise (if displacement can be equated) (there's that headache again). I attribute the extra mass to dense warp coils.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30 2008, 09:03 PM   #51
westwords2020
Commander
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Forbin, does it matter if the Ent is doubled in dimensions with an eight fold increase in volume? After all, the dimensions currently established were never on screen and cannot be ultimatly considered canon until an actor mouths the words 400 by 947 with 24 decks.
I notice you have an advanced version of the Ralph McQuarry version of the Enterprise which is noticable larger than the TOS version.
westwords2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30 2008, 09:27 PM   #52
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Of course it matters. The scale and size has been established for 40 years. It was seen on screen in the Jefferies diagram shown on a monitor in The Enterprise Incident:
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albu...cident_046.JPG

And my avatar is a kitbash of mine, based loosely on McQuarrie's UNUSED proposal, and not meant to be the Enterprise. How would someone's kitbashes have any bearing on the show?
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30 2008, 09:43 PM   #53
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

There is plenty on room for canon wiggling of the scale. (The hangar bay, anyone?) Of course, in TOS they didn't always get scales to make sense - like the shuttle interior. Fans have been fudging scales to get things to fit for quite some time. Of course, doubling the size of the ship would be a little excessive. Then again, this is an all-new version of Trek so they can do whatever they please.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2008, 03:55 AM   #54
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

ancient wrote: View Post
There is plenty on room for canon wiggling of the scale. (The hangar bay, anyone?) Of course, in TOS they didn't always get scales to make sense - like the shuttle interior. Fans have been fudging scales to get things to fit for quite some time. Of course, doubling the size of the ship would be a little excessive. Then again, this is an all-new version of Trek so they can do whatever they please.
In what particular way is there problems with the shuttle-bay size?


CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2008, 04:30 AM   #55
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

The Hangar model used during TOS implies a very large space, that cannot fit into a 947 foot ship.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2008, 11:03 AM   #56
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

Of course, you can only scale it up so much until the windows are rediculously oversized.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2008, 11:18 AM   #57
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Gross Tonnage is a unitless index related to a ship's overall internal volume, Neither Gross Tonnage nor Gross Register Tonnage are measures of the ship's displacement (mass).
Umm, yes, Gross Register Tons are measures of volume, which is why they are never called just plain Gross Tons or Tons, due to the massive potential for confusion.

But gross tons certainly are a measure of mass (or of weight, to be accurate, since the terminology dates back to the era when tons and pounds were simply units of the gravitational force, and the property of mass wasn't separately considered). Since that expression is currently used to separate the 2240-pound (1016-kilogram) gross/long/imperial ton from the 2000-pound (907-kilogram) short/ ton, one could readily assume that gross ton in the future is the poetic equivalent of the 1000-kilogram ton.

It would be different if Scotty really spoke of Gross Tonnage, which, much like Gross Register Tonnage, is a measure of volume. But he speaks of gross tons, which confusingly enough have nothing to do with Gross Tonnage, and never had.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2008, 02:45 PM   #58
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

^^ I told you, headaches headaches headaches
__________________
"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 December 3 2008, 03:28 PM   #59
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

This is why I like airplanes better than ships.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2008, 09:25 PM   #60
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Aw come on, battleships are fun.
__________________
"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 01:49 PM.

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