RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,349
Posts: 5,354,443
Members: 24,620
Currently online: 687
Newest member: Cultiste

TrekToday headlines

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


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 December 7 2008, 02:54 PM   #91
Richard Baker
Commander
 
Richard Baker's Avatar
 
Location: Warrior, AL
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

I would go with the 1080 size. I always figuresd the Saucer to be 11 decks thick and the rim to be 2 decks- it fits the wondow patterns and the ship's interior that we have seen. The Pike era ship had less crew but later refits reduced the amount of equipment and early replicators allowed for less volume to be used for food storage so the crew increased in size. The movie refit increased the size of the ship and changed almost every proportion- the reason it was still called a refit instead of a completely new ship was mentioned soemwhere as that they used origianl parts (sometimes melted and recast) in it's costruction to keep the ship the same famous Enterprise that Starfleet changed all of it's markings to honor.
Starfleet designs always seem to be trying to make things bigger and bigger- the Voyager was consideres a 'small nimble vessel' but it is much larger that the movie refit Enterprise. Edwin Whitfire (one of the original designers of the Galaxy Class with Andy Probert) told me that the Enterprise D was too big- ven with a crew of over a thousand you would have about one person per football field size area- you could wander for weeks and never see anybody else.

.
Richard Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2008, 08:04 PM   #92
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Shaw,

With that said, 1,080 feet / 329.19 meters sounds more logical. I would speculate that would make the Constitution-Class Refit 347.5 meters?


While, I'm at it: Does this mean the other ships in Star Trek, such as the D-7 would be ~1.140 to 1.141 (1080/947 = 1.404435) times as large?
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2008, 09:34 PM   #93
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

I'm not really loyal to either number, but tend to go with 1080 since, why not?

For me, length is a fairly trivial detail, the true issue is shape and volume, which I like better when the ship is slightly bigger. MJ's sketch is pretty crude, and doesn't match the proportions of the 11-ft model all that well, so I've always figured that fudging with the ship's exact size was always in the cards.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2008, 10:33 PM   #94
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Addendum to the above: I do still tend to lean towards the 947' figure, out of tradition if nothing else, but if, in the end, the ship just won't work at that size, I can handle increasing the size a tad.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2008, 10:38 PM   #95
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Shaw,

With that said, 1,080 feet / 329.19 meters sounds more logical.
Well, the logic of it depends on the goal and motivations of those working on this. And while we are all passionate about envisioning the possibility of the TOS Enterprise, few of our projects are truly overlapping when looking at the constraints we are using. For example, my work is based on similar constraints used by aridas sofia, and because of this our results look very similar. Our goal is to see just how well Jefferies had thought this stuff out back in the 1960's. That type of project has well defined initial conditions and requires almost no re-imagining of anything. Sizes are strictly defined, much of the placement internal elements were given, and from there it is mainly an arrangement puzzle.

Now, with a completely different set of constraints, initial conditions and assumptions, someone else (like you and others) would find a length of 1080 feet a perfectly logical choice. And I look forward to seeing what everyone comes up with based on their starting points. My starting points were chronicled in a long (and currently dormant) thread.

But none of this is a contest (to me), I plan on returning to that project at some point when I have some time, but we should all remember that it was a personal project which actually served it's main purpose from my point of view (I now have a very full and complete version of the Enterprise in my mind, that was what I really wanted to begin with). No one else need ever agree with me, and that would be fine. I've encouraged others to make the same attempts I have starting with whatever constraints, conditions and assumptions work for them. And all of my sketches and notes were released under a share-and-share-alike license for all to use if they want to (just as I plan on doing for all future works).

So if 1080' is what works for you, go forward and make it into something that you can share with the rest of us, because I love seeing all of these different ideas.



ancient wrote: View Post
MJ's sketch is pretty crude, and doesn't match the proportions of the 11-ft model all that well, so I've always figured that fudging with the ship's exact size was always in the cards.
Why are you using a sketch?

We have more than enough of the original construction plans (including accurate measurements) to see that the 11 foot model matches those plans quite well.


But if you lack that information, sure, fudge away. I, on the other hand, felt I had enough information to base my plans on Jefferies original construction plans and only switch to using the 11 foot model after Cary made the suggestion.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 8 2008, 04:25 AM   #96
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

I don't use the scaled sketch MJ made, that's what I just said.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2008, 03:46 AM   #97
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Assuming the Enterprise was supposed to be 1,080 feet or 329.19 meters in length, does that mean that all of the other ships in Star Trek such as the Romulan BoP, the Klingon/Romulan D-7 and Klingon D-7M all supposed to be proportionately scaled up as well?

CuttingEdge100
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12 2008, 05:06 AM   #98
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
Assuming the Enterprise was supposed to be 1,080 feet or 329.19 meters in length, does that mean that all of the other ships in Star Trek such as the Romulan BoP, the Klingon/Romulan D-7 and Klingon D-7M all supposed to be proportionately scaled up as well?

CuttingEdge100
Not necessarily... since this is a fairly small "tweak" rather than a major redefinition (approximately 14%).

Since we weren't given ANY scale indicator of the Romulan ship, this one is totally untouched. The Tholian ships work just fine either way, too... there is no clear scale definition that sets the two to be a specific size relative to the Enterprise... only a few "rough scale" SFX shots that give you accuracy to, say, +/- 25% or so.

But the Klingon ship... well, we were never really given a length for that other than in the one MJ sketch, nor a relative scale other than in that same MJ sketch.

My take is that the proportions in the sketch (which are very visible on-screen) are important, but the actual length is less so, since it wasn't readable on-screen. SO... in THIS case, yeah, I'd say up-scale the Klingon D-7A (TOS) design (that's always been how I, and many "fan translations," translate the wing-markings on the TOS ship, by the way).

As for the TMP ships... well, since both are (as far as I'm concerned) really entirely new ships that just reuse a few parts to justify the construction of a new ship that's not allowed under treaty/bookkeeping restrictions (that's how I see the TMP ship... it's entirely new, but keeps the same registration and is called a "refit" to avoid violating some sort of regulation or treaty) or the TMP Klingon ship (totally new as well... D-7M, being the widely accepted designation... with the D-7S being the TUC version as I recall!). These ships can be left at their "official scales" per the TMP blueprints without any problem. They are, after all, new ships. And this actually helps out a little bit with the idea that the TOS and TMP Enterprise may have, for instance, kept the same core Primary Hull structure... I believe that this eliminates the "enlarged saucer diameter" issue, doesn't it?)
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13 2008, 08:00 PM   #99
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Cary L. Brown,

I agree with you that the D-7 being that it was shown in comparison to the Enterprise that it needs to be scaled up as well. I think the D-7M K'Tinga and all D-7 variants need to be scaled up as well.

The D-7A scaled up goes from 228.3 meters to ~260.36 meters
The D-7M scaled up goes from 232.64* meters to ~265.313 meters


CuttingEdge100
* - I took some diagrams and compared the length of the D-7 and D-7M sans nacelles; they were virtually the same length. With the longer nacelles of the D-7M, the ship came out to my computations to be 232.64 meters about.
CuttingEdge100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13 2008, 09:17 PM   #100
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
But the Klingon ship... well, we were never really given a length for that other than in the one MJ sketch, nor a relative scale other than in that same MJ sketch.

My take is that the proportions in the sketch (which are very visible on-screen) are important, but the actual length is less so, since it wasn't readable on-screen.
Well, aren't we actually talking about two sketches... and as for what degree we can (or should) disregard those for certain aspects while retaining other aspects, maybe we should actually look at them here...




Unlike other TOS displays (such as the phaser display that is our only on screen reference for the Constitution), these graphics were meant to be seen by the viewer. They were the focus of the camera and two different views were provided.

Seems sort of odd to be using this for relative scale reference between these ships while disregarding the visible scale key in the same set of images.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14 2008, 01:10 AM   #101
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

What does this graphics scale say about the size of both ships, and why might some ignore it?
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14 2008, 01:30 AM   #102
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Ronald Held wrote: View Post
What does this graphics scale say about the size of both ships, and why might some ignore it?
It doesn't actually state the length of either ship at all. You have to do quite a bit of work to get to the length from this (and it would be impossible to come to any real conclusion about the length outside of about +/- 10% from this if viewing it on your TV set.

You can get much more accurate looking at the original MJ artwork and by doing some pixel-based measurement.

I ignore nothing... I simply think that the only thing we can REALLY take from this is the "general range of size" of the ships... not a specific, terribly accurate number. And we also can't derive the EXACT proportional size of the two ships relative to each other, but we can tell the "general proportions" of each relative to the other.

In other words... it's a good starting point and needs to be respected but it's not the "final word." If there was a line on there which stated "U.S.S. Enterprise - 300m in length" or whatever... that would be harder to argue against, though if it wasn't readable on-screen, I could still let it slide.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14 2008, 06:22 AM   #103
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
In other words... it's a good starting point and needs to be respected but it's not the "final word." If there was a line on there which stated "U.S.S. Enterprise - 300m in length" or whatever... that would be harder to argue against, though if it wasn't readable on-screen, I could still let it slide.
Well, considering that the Enterprise illustration used in the graphic was already out in the public domain (thanks to TMoST) before this episode aired on TV, one could argue that the scale shown in the graphic was known to many before they even saw this episode. And as the scale shows the Enterprise at just short of 950' in the graphic and the TMoST illustration does give a definitive length of 947', I'd say that it reenforces that length.

But here is something to ponder... when looking at Jefferies measurements I noticed early on that because the Enterprise is a set of individual parts, the overall length is a very bad way of comparing the relative scales of Jefferies' writers guide graphics, his construction plans, the 33" and 11' models. Because of this I used the primary hull diameter as a method of normalizing these differing representations of the Enterprise.

Interestingly enough, making measurements that way we end up with the 11' model being 931' long (if the primary hull is 417' in diameter). And all of the other individual parts (nacelles and secondary hull) are less than 1% off of Jefferies' measurements using this method.



As I said before, I think anyone can make this ship whatever way they want to... and I'll be happy to see what people come up with no matter what. But don't work to hard attempting to justify the whys, it is better to spend that energy putting out a great set of plans than to figure out how to discredit what is already there.

Cary and others have said that they need a 1080' long ship to make their plans work. If that was what they needed, then that is reason enough behind their efforts.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 02:27 AM   #104
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Those "Enterprise Incident" images are beautiful. Thank you for posting them.

I suppose the real question for me is how the Enterprise crew had enough room to house both the standard crew (no evidence of anyone being kicked off the ship) and an additional supercargo of Federation dignitaries (100 of them? At least dozens??) during the Enterprise's "Journey to Babel". Last time I heard, 430 + 100 = 530. Must be lotsa room aboard that starship!

And since nobody in TOS ever said anything about escape pods, we must assume that the ship's hangar deck (decks?) would house more than a puny four shuttlecraft. I'm not saying this just to be a smartass, but to point out that there has to be more to the ship than any of us (or anyone involved in making TOS) may have thought about. Taken in that light, 1,080 feet might be too conservative. (And no, I'm not advocating that the ship be inflated to 2,000 feet long.)
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2008, 02:57 AM   #105
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: Up sizing the movie Enterprise

I just checked out the teaser to "Journey to Babel" on the CBS web-site.

They mention a total of 114 supercargo aboard. So that's 430 + 114 = 544 ???
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley 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 03:51 PM.

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