Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculous?

[enterprisecvn65]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

The ships are big enough to do what they need to do, and if they need to do more stuff they get bigger.

Really? That simple? Huh.....I thought you always had to account for things like increased energy, propulsion, crew and the things to keep them, access to support facilities.

Guess not.

If only there were some way in which rockets could be designed to needs and built to them, instead of dropping fully-formed from the gods and unalterable by human agency!

I'm sure the boys at NASA will be relieved when this landing men on Mars thing gets rolling and all they'll have to tell the rocket engineers is "Look the Saturn V isn't big enough, just create one that is 600 feet and 3 times larger and we'll be good." Since there in no limit on the size of craft apparently.

Yeah, the idea of ever designing or building a rocket considerably larger than the Saturn V is just crazy moon-man talk. Er, Mars-man talk.

I've also seen articles for things like a 5000 foot tall building in Japan that would be home to 20000 people and have parks and lakes and everything a city does. Last time I checked they hadn't started ground breaking for it.

It's one thing to talk about what was proposed. It's another to actually build it. Talk to me when we actually make a rocket much bigger that the Saturn V. Let alone 24 times as large within 80 years. So we'll touch on this again around 2046.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Hey, nothing will ever top this old STARLORD comic from the late seventies that featured a space-ship a light-year-long.

Think about that for a minute.

Now that took my willing suspension of disbelief and pushed it way beyond all credible bounds . . .

 

[IrishNero]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

I think the growth of any item such as this is probably related to needs, and responses to threats. Deep space exploration would require increasing quantities of everything, and more personnel to provide various levels of support for longer periods of time. And if your enemies are increasing the size of their ships, and increasing the compliment of their various armaments, you will likely need to do the same to retain a level of equality. So, in that respect, you'd probably have a chicken or the egg scenario: Did they increase their ship sizes first, or did we?

This is all fiction, so any answer would be conjecture, but these are interesting viewpoints none-the-less.

 

[IrishNero]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Hey, nothing will ever top this old STARLORD comic from the late seventies that featured a space-ship a light-year-long.

Think about that for a minute.

Now that took my willing suspension of disbelief and pushed it way beyond all credible bounds . . .

Imagine the raw materials THAT ship would require.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

I think, from a production stand point, it was a matter of distinguishing itself within the different continuities and shows.

From an in-universe perspective, I think its a matter of responding to threats. The Constitution class was more than sufficient to face off against the D-7 and seemingly other threats the Federation faced. The Galaxy class was more of an emphasis on exploration, and allowed families, so more space was provided. Quick real world note: the concept of civilians on board led to the saucer separation concept, which meant that the battle section was more combat oriented.

After the Borg attack, and then the Dominion War, the Federation would definitely ramp up both size and production capabilities of their ship yards, to accommodate such changes. To me, the Sovereign seems a natural evolution in response to Borg and Dominion threats.

As for Abrams Enterprise, I see it as a response to the Narada threat, in light of a possible resurgence in Romulan hostilities (I have a number of fan theories about that). The Vengeance is just the next generation, plus Marcus' ego and determination to have a war, regardless of cost.

Also, it looks cool

 

[Ithekro]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

The logic for Star Trek seems to be the need for longer range missions with newer high cruising speed warp drives.

Excelsior was an experiment for transwarp drive. It is assumed that the new system needed the large, long nacelles to function, and that dictated the ship's size to fit the stable warp field within standard asthetics.

The Ambassador and Galaxy class ships seems to have a newer style of nacelle that is shorter but fatter than those on Excelsior. It is logical to assume they are for the next generation of warp drives that can maintain high warp speeds over long periods of time. The longer endurance and size translates to the new ships being intended for long term deep space missions away from Federation space (why else take your familes with you unless you don't intend to come home for five years or more?) The Galaxy-class expanding on the concept with the additional saucer space for the familes and so many sensor arrays that it takes an android to keep track of everything.

The Sovereign-class is similar in size, but seems more adapted for combat than deep space exploration. By the time it is designed, Starfleet has to be able to field combat capable ships that can respond to the larger threat vessels build by the other powers in responce to the Federation's Ambassador-class and Galaxy-class starships.

However, Starfleet also builds ships that are not intended for long term missions, and these are still around the size of Kirk's Enterprise. They also prefected newer warp drives that can maintian high cruising speeds that are much smaller than those on the Ambassador-class.

 

[Kemaiku]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

A ship 6 trillion miles long? what was it even built for, to give the Flash a sprinting track he could actually use?

 

[Ithekro]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Even a ship a Light-second long would be huge beyond reason.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Hey, nothing will ever top this old STARLORD comic from the late seventies that featured a space-ship a light-year-long.

Think about that for a minute.

Now that took my willing suspension of disbelief and pushed it way beyond all credible bounds . . .

Imagine the raw materials THAT ship would require.

Heck, just imagine trying to send a signal from the bridge to the engineering room. Unless you're using subspace transmissions for all your internal communications, it could take a year to send a message to the other end of the ship.

And just how fast would the turbolifts have to be?

"Spock, get to Engineering immediately!"

"Affirmative, Captain. Expect me back several years from now."

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Star Trek is every bit as fictional as Star Wars, plus they still adhered to basic principles of human physics. My point was more an agreement about the previous comment about Star Trek being quite reserved in the size of it's ships. Star Wars is most definitely not. Either way we are talking about fictional ships in a fictional sci fi universe.

Well I was clearly talking about ST vs itself in my OP and wanted to keep other franchises out of it, but if you insist I'll play along.

So they made these Flash Gordon serials in the 1930's and 40's and it I'd say the biggest ship I ever saw in one was maybe 200 feet long.

So, since it's a fictional ship in a fictional sci fi universe, the scale of ST ships is preposterous and beyond any reason according to that franchise.

Or is that franchise too old to qualify? Is there a statue of limitations on how close franchises have to be to be considered against others? What are the other ground rules for comparing totally different series?

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Hey, nothing will ever top this old STARLORD comic from the late seventies that featured a space-ship a light-year-long.

Think about that for a minute.

Now that took my willing suspension of disbelief and pushed it way beyond all credible bounds . . .

Imagine the raw materials THAT ship would require.

Heck, just imagine trying to send a signal from the bridge to the engineering room. Unless you're using subspace transmissions for all your internal communications, it could take a year to send a message to the other end of the ship.

And just how fast would the turbolifts have to be?

"Spock, get to Engineering immediately!"

"Affirmative, Captain. Expect me back several years from now."

If the Enterprise was that big in TWOK they'd better hope the Genesis counter was set at something like 100 years, and create many new breakthroughs in that time, to give Spock the time to get down and fix the warp drive.

 

[Nebusj]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Really? That simple? Huh.....I thought you always had to account for things like increased energy, propulsion, crew and the things to keep them, access to support facilities.

Guess not.

If only there were some way in which rockets could be designed to needs and built to them, instead of dropping fully-formed from the gods and unalterable by human agency!

I'm sure the boys at NASA will be relieved when this landing men on Mars thing gets rolling and all they'll have to tell the rocket engineers is "Look the Saturn V isn't big enough, just create one that is 600 feet and 3 times larger and we'll be good." Since there in no limit on the size of craft apparently.

Yeah, the idea of ever designing or building a rocket considerably larger than the Saturn V is just crazy moon-man talk. Er, Mars-man talk.

I've also seen articles for things like a 5000 foot tall building in Japan that would be home to 20000 people and have parks and lakes and everything a city does. Last time I checked they hadn't started ground breaking for it.

It's one thing to talk about what was proposed. It's another to actually build it. Talk to me when we actually make a rocket much bigger that the Saturn V. Let alone 24 times as large within 80 years. So we'll touch on this again around 2046.

OK, then, let us pin down exactly what we're going to chat about in 2046. Your proposition is that it is absurd that there will ever be a rocket larger than the Saturn V built, even if such building requires no substantially new breakthroughs in materials or technology. Is that your assertion?

 

[Cyke101]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

A carrier, as big as it is, still has the advantage of ports and will still have the support of the navy. A starship on a 5 year mission, on the other hand, will probably need to be more self-sufficient, especially given the ginormous gulfs of space

The Enterprise on it's 5 year mission (imo) was never intended to go without port calls, maintenance visits or resupply. The Enterprise occasionally visited starbases.

I'm not saying that it was supposed to be 5 years of no contact with the Federation or friendly ports; clearly we saw them at various starbases and Federation worlds several times over in TOS. But the idea was that in exploring the great unknown, they'd have to be at their best because help was few and far between (partly to do with Roddenberry's 'Wagon Train' to the stars," when pioneer exploration of the West was perilous because of lack of resources).

If an aircraft carrier gets stuck in the middle of the Pacific, there's still a fleet and squadrons of aircraft that can be deployed to assist in a relatively short amount of time. Not so in TOS' depiction of Starfleet.

Hey, nothing will ever top this old STARLORD comic from the late seventies that featured a space-ship a light-year-long.

Think about that for a minute.

Now that took my willing suspension of disbelief and pushed it way beyond all credible bounds . . .

Imagine the raw materials THAT ship would require.

*running to the bridge*
"If I walk, the movie will be over!" -- President Skroob

 

[Timo]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

"Helm, set course for Alpha Beta!"
"Aye, Sir! Course set. Turning now... Turn completed."
"Helm, best speed to Alpha Beta!"
"Aye, Sir! Engaging full reverse; the bow will be level with Alpha Beta in a few hours. Or do you want to exit through the amidships gangway now?"

That aside, when you build things that are supposed to move, and you don't have to mind things like roads or strength of suspension, it becomes a relatively simple issue of logistics. Almost regardless of the engineering specifics, big is good for getting loads from A to B, in terms of fuel economy, time and investment in general tare - but small is better for getting loads from A to B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J. Space navies are probably more in the latter business than the former.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[SPCTRE]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Hey, nothing will ever top this old STARLORD comic from the late seventies that featured a space-ship a light-year-long.

Think about that for a minute.

Now that took my willing suspension of disbelief and pushed it way beyond all credible bounds . . .

That's not a space-ship - that's a yo-mamma-joke!

 

[Smellmet]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Star Trek is every bit as fictional as Star Wars, plus they still adhered to basic principles of human physics. My point was more an agreement about the previous comment about Star Trek being quite reserved in the size of it's ships. Star Wars is most definitely not. Either way we are talking about fictional ships in a fictional sci fi universe.

Well I was clearly talking about ST vs itself in my OP and wanted to keep other franchises out of it, but if you insist I'll play along.

So they made these Flash Gordon serials in the 1930's and 40's and it I'd say the biggest ship I ever saw in one was maybe 200 feet long.

So, since it's a fictional ship in a fictional sci fi universe, the scale of ST ships is preposterous and beyond any reason according to that franchise.

Or is that franchise too old to qualify? Is there a statue of limitations on how close franchises have to be to be considered against others? What are the other ground rules for comparing totally different series?

You are missing the point - yes the thread is about Star Trek versus itself but my point is that I don't believe that Trek has gone too far or silly, like a certain other 'Star' franchise has. I'm just slightly disagreeing with you, nothing more.

 

[Disco]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

It's not realistic to compare the growth in sizes of air craft carriers and space shuttles with star ships. The power requirements are different, the practicalities of the travel are different and the organisations behind the star ships are much larger.

 

[IrishNero]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

So, the question becomes: If there are distinct advantages that are offered by increases in size and armaments, why aren't more Starfleet ships being built that are massive and armed to the teeth?

 

[dswynne1]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Personally, I'm fine with the larger size, for certain class of Federation starships. Closer to home, you can have the smaller ships. Beyond the border, especially in uncharted space (with families on board no less), you would need to have a more self-supporting vehicle. That includes basic manufacturing capabilities and space to use for emergencies (like botanical gardens).

Besides, over-thinking FICTION is quite silly, IMO.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

Re: Did the constant increase in size of each Enterprise get ridiculou

Star Trek is every bit as fictional as Star Wars, plus they still adhered to basic principles of human physics. My point was more an agreement about the previous comment about Star Trek being quite reserved in the size of it's ships. Star Wars is most definitely not. Either way we are talking about fictional ships in a fictional sci fi universe.

Well I was clearly talking about ST vs itself in my OP and wanted to keep other franchises out of it, but if you insist I'll play along.

So they made these Flash Gordon serials in the 1930's and 40's and it I'd say the biggest ship I ever saw in one was maybe 200 feet long.

So, since it's a fictional ship in a fictional sci fi universe, the scale of ST ships is preposterous and beyond any reason according to that franchise.

Or is that franchise too old to qualify? Is there a statue of limitations on how close franchises have to be to be considered against others? What are the other ground rules for comparing totally different series?

You are missing the point - yes the thread is about Star Trek versus itself but my point is that I don't believe that Trek has gone too far or silly, like a certain other 'Star' franchise has. I'm just slightly disagreeing with you, nothing more.

OK I see your point.
Personally I think it's hard to compare the two because Star Wars was total fantasy in some galaxy that never existed. Where as Trek is a humanity in the future story. So IMHO ST has more "realistic" expectations to it.
You say they are direct relations to each other in their genres to it is fine to do direct comparisons......No prob.