Up sizing the movie Enterprise

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by westwords2020, Nov 23, 2008.

  1. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    Yup! Look how much fun we had with the Yamato and the Musashi! WHHEEEE-BOOM!


    (Boom, boom-boom, boom. Boom. Glub.)
     
  2. CuttingEdge100

    CuttingEdge100 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Well, the shuttle bay being smaller makes sense. But the shuttle bay is probably like 4 decks high as it's about twice the rim thickness from what I remember.

    A shuttle can fit in there...
     
  3. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    The hangar deck model used in TOS was a forced-perspective miniature made intentionally oversized at the fore wall. I'm sure it was also egaggerated a bit in general size to make the ship look bigger and more impressive to TV viewers. And that they only had one little shuttlecraft model to stick in that cavern helped make it look so huge.
     
  4. wonderstoat

    wonderstoat Lieutenant Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2006
    Location:
    Ireland
    Westwords2020, you seem unnaturally obsessed with size. If you don't think it's big enough, you're probably right: It isn't.:lol:
     
  5. Cid Highwind

    Cid Highwind Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Location:
    Germany
    Hah, that's what she said! :cardie:



    ...Uhm...
     
  6. westwords2020

    westwords2020 Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Only in the sense that I see the TOS Enterprise as too small. Doubling dimensions keeps the proportions and allows for future ships to still be bigger even though the upscaled Ent is about 1900 feet long. Ent D isn't so much longer as it is wider and longer in the saucer section. Also, on the series, we saw a ship with very high rooms and corridors which might help and windows were only in certain places which might allow them to be high enough for the new scale and this is visible inside and not outside to an external observer who should see little differencne in proportions; I hope.
     
  7. wonderstoat

    wonderstoat Lieutenant Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2006
    Location:
    Ireland
    um ... how do I put this?? My single entendre seemingly wasn't single enough ...
    Don't worry about it ...
     
  8. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    You keep saying it's "too small." Yet you haven't, as of today, given any RATIONALE behind that.

    You think it's "too small." So convince us. Prove to us that if they were building a ship to do the job the TOS Enterprise was doing that it would need to be some specific size, and that the size it needs to be is significantly larger than the one we've been told for 40+ years.

    For the record, I'm one of those who does think that the ship should be larger than the on-screen evidence (one screen-cap) and the unofficial (yet intended) original design intent.

    I'm in the 1080' camp, you see. The reason for that is that, having tried to fit everything in, I came to the conclusion that the ship needed to be larger... specifically, about 1100' in length. This allowed for all the sets to work, for the bridge (conceptually) to work (albeit with a few dimensional tweaks as well), the hangar to work, the engineering set to work... everything... and to allow for relatively thick deck and wall thicknesses (critical for mechanical strength, as well as to fit with the stuff we've seen indicating wall thicknesses and so forth)

    I don't believe that the 947' number is inviolable. But I do believe that you have to have a REASON... a logical, well-thought-through, arguable position.

    So far, you have failed to provide anything of the sort. You're only... ONLY... talking about "well, I think it ought to be bigger 'cuz bigger is kewl" it seems.

    That's NONSENSE. Plain and simple. You make it as big as it needs to be, and not one inch longer, not one ounce heavier. You don't make things bigger "just because we can." Especially if the "we can" argument is based upon SFX work, not even upon in-universe arguments.

    You want to be taken seriously in your "proposal?" Then SUPPORT IT WITH AN ARGUMENT.

    Why does the ship need to be the size you want it to be?
     
  9. Vance

    Vance Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    The classic Enterprise is the size of a frickin' Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carrier with less than half the crew, a tenth of the secondary vessels, and its main engine assembly completely seperate from the rest of the ship. Even with all that, the ship is shown as being 'crowded' while in operation.

    I'm looking over Janes' Fighting Ships right now, and seeing tiny subs with 200 crew that are literally out of contact with the world for months at a time while on patrols.

    So, seriously, how is the ship too small?
     
  10. ancient

    ancient Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    Well, if you discount the nacelles, which take up a sizable portion of the ship, it's nowhere near that big.
     
  11. Vance

    Vance Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Nope, still is (or very very close to it). The Enterprise is considerably DEEPER, which makes up the extra mass. It's a pretty impressive-sized ship, really, which makes me wonder why a crew of 400 couldn't stay on her. Other than set discrepancies (which are Hollywoodisms anyway), what, exactly, is the size issue for such a crew?
     
  12. ancient

    ancient Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    It's only deeper because of that long neck, which has no actual livable space in it. Some space is made up by the saucer width, but not enough.
     
  13. Vance

    Vance Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Even going with that, keep in mind that much of the hull of the Nimitz (below decks) is the hangar and maintenance area. And, of course, much of the aft of the ship is the nuclear reactor plants.

    So, really, if the remainder of the ship can house, somewhat comfortably, 1200+ crewmen, I'm thinking the 400 of the Enterprise should be fine. As I said, the only issue would be a handful of the set-pieces, which chalk up to Hollywoodisms anyway.
     
  14. Shaw

    Shaw Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Location:
    Twin Cities
    Funny, I thought there was lots of extra space in the neck and I'm one of those 947' guys. :eek: Come to think of it... I really wasn't having any of the space issues most everyone said there should be, and I still have lots of open space to fill.
     
  15. MarianLH

    MarianLH Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Location:
    Lower decks

    If you want to imagine it being larger, go right ahead; it's your imagination. But it works perfectly well at the official length. Even with the Hollywood-sized quarters, room has been found for all 430 crew and the frickin' bowling alley.


    Marian
     
  16. ancient

    ancient Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    Yeah, I don't really disagree with that, because that wasn't really my point. I was talking about the relative size/volume only.

    Now, if you want to talk about the crew size, I'm sure you could fit 430 people into the ENT fairly easily, but it would probably require the 9 or 12 person-to-a-room set-up we saw in TUC. The TOS ENT is not built like they were trying to save space though. I mean...7 foot wide, 10 foot tall corridors all over for one.
     
  17. ancient

    ancient Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    Imo, the neck should comprise mostly of support structure and power/lifesupport/comp lines. With a few lounges to explain all the windows. I wouldn't put living quarters in the neck. Even if you did, how many would even fit?

    There isn't really a volume problem with the ENT, the only real problem is with the shape. If you mostly ignore the supposed hangar size, and don't mind shinking the cieling height from the 10 ft height of the original set down to 7 or 8 ft to fit in the saucer rim, 947 isn't too bad. Though i prefer the 1080 foot size. Only slightly bigger, and an 11 deck saucer actually makes sense then.
     
  18. Shaw

    Shaw Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Location:
    Twin Cities
    One should recall that I was using the original set plans (with the 10 foot ceilings), Jefferies' original deck layouts, and had room for more than 290 cabins in the primary hull alone. No need for 9 or 12 people to a room there... I was considering a small amount of the crew doubling up but there is also a ton of room left in the secondary hull for more cabins.

    As for the dorsal, the true strength of it would comes from geometry rather than bunk material. The amount of room for use can be seen in my sketches here, here and here.

    In my opinion Jefferies did a good job and few if any compromises are needed to make everything work. But to each their own... if you want something different, do it your way. But it works as Jefferies laid it out just fine.
     
  19. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    Half? A tenth of the crew! Carriers have, like 5,000 crew!
     
  20. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Of course, on naval aircraft, crewmen don't get individual (or even "two per cabin") quarters... you basically get a "rack" and a couple of drawers right under your bed for storage, and that's it. Far from "comfortable."

    Part of why this is the case is that on a carrier, the crew has plenty of exposure to fresh air, broad vistas (granted, of the ocean, not so much of land!) and so forth.

    On submarines, on the other hand, they're packed in (if anything) even tighter. So submarine cruises are generally very short, and are cycled in and out. It's pretty well established now that continuous living in that sort of situation results in the crew going bonkers.

    So... giving each crewmember 10X the space, AND including volumes for recreation and so forth, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    Here's how I see bunking on the ship. First off, I totally ignore Roddenberry's phoney-baloney claim that "everyone on board is an officer." That's nonsense on every possible level, INCLUDING on-screen evidence. The Enterprise clearly had "crewmen" on board, as well as officer ranks (ensign through captain).

    The junior-most crewmen would be bunked four to a cabin... two sets of bunkbeds, with a partitioned-off common lounge area and a shared bathroom. This, along with the three-shifts system the 1701 supposely used, allows for a certain degree of privacy while still being very space-efficient. I'd probably put those four-to-a-cabin quarters in the neck, too... the relatively small spaces and large amount of wall structures would fit in well into the structural framework needed for a load-bearing neck structure.

    The mid-level crewmen would be bunked two to a cabin... a single bunkbed, with the personnel working different shifts. These cabins would not be partitioned like the junior enlisted ones... no separate "lounge" area... since there would be no issue with noise/light preventing anyone from sleeping.

    Senior enlisted crewmen, most warrant officers, and the junior officers (ensigns and lieutenants-junior-grade) would have the same basic cabin, but not a bunkbed, just a single bed.

    Mid-level officers... lieutenant and lieutenant commander ranks... would have a larger private cabin with an integral living/office/lounge space which would be partitioned from their sleeping quarters. This would allow them to use that area as an office for use in private meetings with subordinates and so forth, as well as to perform certain other managerial aspects of their leadership responsibilities. Note that this isn't quite the same as what we saw in the series (where there was only one cabin set) but it DOES match what was seen in TMP (where they used half of the cabin set, rearranged, to represent Lt. Ilia's cabin)

    Senior officers... Commander and Captain (as well as all of the department-heads, regardless of rank) would have the largest cabins, very similar to what the mid-level officers have but with larger office-spaces (since they might have larger groups present for any meeting). This would be pretty much what we saw in TOS for the "standard cabin" except that the partition wall would be something more like what was seen in TMP/TWOK, not just the mesh half-wall seen in TOS).

    The only places where this doesn't match with what was seen on-screen would be with Ensign Garrovik and with Janice Rand, in TOS. Well, I have no problem mentally "retconning" Garrovick's cabin to be smaller... it's not like that has any real effect on the show. And as for Rand, well... I suppose as the Captain's Yeoman (who would be required to handle most of the captain's day-to-day business operations) so even though she's either an ensign (unlikely) or more likely a mid-level enlisted crewman, she'd rate the "special accomodation" due to having to use the cabin as an office as well (she is, after all, the "captain's secretary.")

    Given all that... the 947' Enterprise easily holds a crew of 430 plus about a dozen full-sized "guest cabins," plus all the working spaces and cargo holds and so forth.

    The only reason for upsizing the ship to 1080' comes down to trying to fit (as closely as possible) the existing sets into the existing model, with the hangar being the real "key factor." The bridge ends up needing some "size tweaking" (largely making the lift-entryway a bit deeper) but otherwise everything works.