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

[IrishNero]

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

It may be true that Star Wars is more fantasy-based, but Trek has had some pretty wild stuff too. The idea of omnipotent beings with God-like powers such as 'Q' is on the order to 'bewitched.' You have to admit that's pretty out there...

 

[enterprisecvn65]

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.

Define what qualifies as over thinking it.

Part of the main reasons why boards like this exist is for people to discuss elements of the franchise within the fictional universe it exists. As I mentioned basically every question of these kind can be ultimately ended with "It's all fiction so what does it matter."

If that's the attitude someone wants to have in threads like these.....there's really no reason to participate. I'm pretty confident sure everyone in threads like this know Star Trek was a show that started in the 60's and has continued in various incarnations to the present and it's not some thing that is a doctrine for the future, they just enjoy the discussions.

Saying "It's all fiction anyway" is like asking questions to people who don't believe in any afterlife about small things like"what is your favorite Starbuck's drink?" to major ones like "is it immoral for me to enjoy killing homeless drifters more than watching a baseball game?" and the reply that is offered up is "What does it matter because we're all going to die anyway and no reward or punishment awaits us"

Well.....basically yeah that could be the answer for every question, but it kind of kills the point of discussing these things in the first place.

Saying "Hey it's just sci fi" or "because the writers decided to do it" instead of responding in the spirit of the topic does the same thing. It kills the topic completely with the response that we all already know is the ultimate final word on it.

Just seems like a waste of time to even post if that's the attitude a person has when reading other people get into spirited discussions over the ST universe.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

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

It may be true that Star Wars is more fantasy-based, but Trek has had some pretty wild stuff too. The idea of omnipotent beings with God-like powers such as 'Q' is on the order to 'bewitched.' You have to admit that's pretty out there...

Yes, there is "wild stuff" in Star Trek. However, much of that is inaccessible to our heroes, the Federation (for all intents and purposes, humans). Conversely, two sides (Rebels/Empire, Republic/Separatists) are fighting over a territorial entity that controls vast amounts of power, and through mistakes of genetics, special mystical powers are available to certain individuals, including humans. In Trek, those special powers and forces are, more often than not, threats for peoples of limited means to resolve rather than harness for themselves.

 

[Greg Cox]

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

From a practical, storytelling standpoint, I'm not sure the actual dimensions of the ship matter much since it's an object floating in a vast, empty space with little to provide a sense of scale, aside from other starships and space stations. You probably want to know that a Klingon battle cruiser is roughly the same size as the Enterprise and cannot fit into the Enterprise's shuttle bay (and vice versa), but most of the time it's just a big object cruising through an empty void. All the ships are effectively the same size when compared to stars and planets and nebulas and so on.

I've written umpteen Trek books and stories and, honestly, I can only think of one occasion where I had to look up the actual dimensions of the Enterprise, in order to figure out how many refugees I could realistically cram into it. Most of the time, the length and width of the ship doesn't have really have any impact on the plotting.

It's mostly an emotional thing, I guess. We're wired to think that bigger is more impressive and more powerful, so each new generation of the ship has to be bigger so it feels like the ship is getting bigger and better all the time.

Is there a tipping point where this becomes absurd? Probably, but it's hard to say where that it is. A light-year long maybe?

 

[Cyke101]

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

From a practical, storytelling standpoint, I'm not sure the actual dimensions of the ship matter much since it's an object floating in a vast, empty space with little to provide a sense of scale, aside from other starships and space stations. You probably want to know that a Klingon battle cruiser is roughly the same size as the Enterprise and cannot fit into the Enterprise's shuttle bay (and vice versa), but most of the time it's just a big object cruising through an empty void. All the ships are effectively the same size when compared to stars and planets and nebulas and so on.

I've written umpteen Trek books and stories and, honestly, I can only think of one occasion where I had to look up the actual dimensions of the Enterprise, in order to figure out how many refugees I could realistically cram into it. Most of the time, the length and width of the ship doesn't have really have any impact on the plotting.

It's mostly an emotional thing, I guess. We're wired to think that bigger is more impressive and more powerful, so each new generation of the ship has to be bigger so it feels like the ship is getting bigger and better all the time.

Is there a tipping point where this becomes absurd? Probably, but it's hard to say where that it is. A light-year long maybe?

Give me a small starship so that I can fly to the other side of the big starship, and I'll be fine.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

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

I still chuckle at the thought of the Enterprise being a light year long and khan activating Genesis.

David: they're on a build up to detonation
Kirk: How long
David: We encoded ten years
Kirk: (in a message Scotty will receive in a year because there's no internship subspace comm) Scotty we need warp speed in nine years or we're all dead.
Uhura: No response sir
Kirk: mr sulu get us out of here best possible speed.

Spock realizes the ship is too big and slow to escape the blast, so he heads to the engine room at the other end of the ship. But first he stops in a laboratory and takes 9 years 11 months and 30 days developing a warp drive for the turbo lift, installs it and repairs the warp drive with seconds to spare.

Don't even get me going on Kirk getting a message from McCoy a year later telling him he'd better get down here and hurry. And Spock didn't tell anyone about his warp powered turbo lift before he dies so no one else knows how to use it.

Kirks going to be running down the ship's corridors for a long time.

 

[BillJ]

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

Star Trek is every bit as fictional as Star Wars...

This pretty much sums it up. The creators are going to do what they need to do to catch the audiences eye.

You know if you're going to just eventually say it's sci fi or the shows makers are going to do what they need to drive the plot, why bother to even have a discussion board or post a comment because that line can basically apply to ALMOST EVERY SINGLE THING IN THE FRANCHISE

I don't mind that you generally take up contrary positions to mine. If you're going to do that at least come up with something better than that bit.

It's basically the sci fi equivalent of saying it doesn't matter what you do in life because you're going to die someday.

It's an open thread. In universe, I don't care whether the ships get bigger, doesn't affect the storytelling. Out of universe, it's done to catch the audiences eye.

Sorry if those answers aren't satisfactory to you.

 

[IrishNero]

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

It may be true that Star Wars is more fantasy-based, but Trek has had some pretty wild stuff too. The idea of omnipotent beings with God-like powers such as 'Q' is on the order to 'bewitched.' You have to admit that's pretty out there...

Yes, there is "wild stuff" in Star Trek. However, much of that is inaccessible to our heroes, the Federation (for all intents and purposes, humans). Conversely, two sides (Rebels/Empire, Republic/Separatists) are fighting over a territorial entity that controls vast amounts of power, and through mistakes of genetics, special mystical powers are available to certain individuals, including humans. In Trek, those special powers and forces are, more often than not, threats for peoples of limited means to resolve rather than harness for themselves.

Some valid points. Understand that I'm not a Star Wars fan per se, but I've seen all of the movies. I think there's a number of Trek fans who tend to think of SW as a child's fantasy, and Trek to be a show for the mature and Intelligent. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I don't think either will shed those images as long as SW continues to employ muppets and Trek people flip out when a hot Trek girl takes off her clothes.

 

[Kor]

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

It may be true that Star Wars is more fantasy-based, but Trek has had some pretty wild stuff too. The idea of omnipotent beings with God-like powers such as 'Q' is on the order to 'bewitched.' You have to admit that's pretty out there...

Yes, there is "wild stuff" in Star Trek. However, much of that is inaccessible to our heroes, the Federation (for all intents and purposes, humans). Conversely, two sides (Rebels/Empire, Republic/Separatists) are fighting over a territorial entity that controls vast amounts of power, and through mistakes of genetics, special mystical powers are available to certain individuals, including humans. In Trek, those special powers and forces are, more often than not, threats for peoples of limited means to resolve rather than harness for themselves.

Some valid points. Understand that I'm not a Star Wars fan per se, but I've seen all of the movies. I think there's a number of Trek fans who tend to think of SW as a child's fantasy, and Trek to be a show for the mature and Intelligent. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I don't think either will shed those images as long as SW continues to employ muppets and Trek people flip out when a hot Trek girl takes off her clothes.

I think it's unfair to completely dismiss Star Wars as child's fantasy. It's supposed to be heroic mythology along the lines of Joseph Campbell. That kind of thing is a respected area of serious intellectual study. Campbell regarded George Lucas was "one of his best students" according to various sources I've seen.

Kor

 

[IrishNero]

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

True, and If you look at carefully, Star Wars' success with children is not so much about the stories being simplistic, but about a successful marketing campaign aimed at children. To say it was masterfully crafted would be an understatement.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

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

I think it's unfair to completely dismiss Star Wars as child's fantasy. It's supposed to be heroic mythology along the lines of Joseph Campbell. That kind of thing is a respected area of serious intellectual study. Campbell regarded George Lucas was "one of his best students" according to various sources I've seen.

Kor

SW may better represent to basic hopes and fears in the same way that myths do--which would explain its broader appeal--but that frees it from having to discuss a future in a usable way.

 

[USS Triumphant]

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.

This would be my answer, combined with my own pet theory that the First Federation (including Trill, Betazed, a few others we saw in TNG but never in TOS) joined or merged with the Federation, and brought the technology used to build the Fesarius with them - making ships of a larger scale for at least some purposes in the fleet all but a given. And consequently just about forcing the Klingons and Romulans to ramp up their shipbuilding game in response.

 

[fireproof78]

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.

This would be my answer, combined with my own pet theory that the First Federation (including Trill, Betazed, a few others we saw in TNG but never in TOS) joined or merged with the Federation, and brought the technology used to build the Fesarius with them - making ships of a larger scale for at least some purposes in the fleet all but a given. And consequently just about forcing the Klingons and Romulans to ramp up their shipbuilding game in response.

Interesting theory. Always wondered about the First Federation.

Also, that is my answer as swell. Aside from the Galaxy class, every time we have seen a starship size increase it is in response to a threat, real or perceived.

 

[enterprisecvn65]

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

This pretty much sums it up. The creators are going to do what they need to do to catch the audiences eye.

You know if you're going to just eventually say it's sci fi or the shows makers are going to do what they need to drive the plot, why bother to even have a discussion board or post a comment because that line can basically apply to ALMOST EVERY SINGLE THING IN THE FRANCHISE

I don't mind that you generally take up contrary positions to mine. If you're going to do that at least come up with something better than that bit.

It's basically the sci fi equivalent of saying it doesn't matter what you do in life because you're going to die someday.

It's an open thread. In universe, I don't care whether the ships get bigger, doesn't affect the storytelling. Out of universe, it's done to catch the audiences eye.

Sorry if those answers aren't satisfactory to you.

Your answers don't give me what I would call a significant amount of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

However, there are a couple of trends I've seemed to notice in your responses towards me.

1. You don't seem to like it when I bring up something about ST that I don't like or engage in some discussion about something that I don't thinks make a lot of in universe sense and you seem to get rather snippy about it. I've learned through experience in my months on here to tone down my reactions to disagreements people have with me and learn that's part of what the board is all about. You seem though to have a particular bug about me and a lot of what I say and it comes through in your responses. Whether you feel this is a legit or is my over active imagination is something you only know for sure.

2. You tend to resort to the "Because it's not real" or "Because the creators did it as a plot device so the show/film would work" as a response to in universe questions. Which is something I find weak because, first, in a world that deals with warp drives, phasers, strange aliens and countless other things.....that is of course the ultimate answer to all of it. The spirit of these questions is to talk about them in a Star Trek universe context and not throw down real world hammer to end it.

Second, it implies that I don't know the difference between Star Trek and the real world.

I am well aware that Star Trek was a low budget television produced by Desilu Studios in the 60's, was originally a commercial failure, enjoyed a revival and success through films in the 70's and 80's, was spun off into 4 different TV series starting in the late 80's and is currently in a reincarnation of the original series that's working on it's 3rd film and that not one second of what has ever been filmed for Star Trek has been reality. I also realize that, sadly, many of the people who were involved in TOS have left us and the rest will most likely be gone in the next 10-15 years.......Don't think I can get any more real world understanding than that.

So when you pull out the "It's just fiction or it was done for story" I guess all I can really say is "No duh". I asked the question with that clearly in mind and was interested in responses relating to the fictional universe.

You want to drop the reality hammer as your response to something I question......go ahead it's a free country. I just personally think it's a waste of your time to do so because it's not in the spirit of the conversation and generally just makes me roll my eyes and think "Wow.....really? Glad you told me that. I had no idea."

See you out there. Live long and prosper.

 

[Smellmet]

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

I think people are generally invested in various threads to varying degrees. If I don't particularly agree with what someone is saying, and it's a subject that I don't really care about one way or another, I'm sure I'd be guilty of giving similar responses, that may come across as trying 'shutting the argument down' - I think it's a common thing on these boards. I don't believe BillJ is having a pop at you.

 

[Kor]

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

I am well aware that Star Trek was a low budget television produced by Desilu Studios in the 60's

Actually, for a television show of the mid to late sixties, it was very expensive to produce.

Kor

 

[IrishNero]

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

Going back to watch TOS, I've been able to see how little they put into some of the props. Of course, they put much more emphasis into the stories in those days, vice spending much on props and sets. We also must realize that there was no CGI, and Trek was in line with other shows of its days when it came to television sets.

 

[BillJ]

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

I am well aware that Star Trek was a low budget television produced by Desilu Studios in the 60's

Actually, for a television show of the mid to late sixties, it was very expensive to produce.

Kor

This. It kills me when people keep passing on this myth.

 

[Smellmet]

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

Quite a lot of TNG now looks like what I think TOS looked like in terms of wonky sets and effects, and that was also a very expensive show to produce.

 

[MacLeod]

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

So I know that it wasn't just the Enterprise or starfleet vessels, but the Klingons, Romulans and so on also seemed to increase the size of their vessels at a proportional rate.

Do you think though that the ever increasing size of ships like the Enterprise got to the point where it was just ridiculous and impractical.

Personally I think it did after the Excelsior class.

I understand that generally as craft progress they tend to get larger in size. Modern aircraft carriers are much larger than WWII era ones. Modern cruise ships are generally much bigger than ones from 20-30 years ago, modern passenger jets are larger than the first generation ones.....and so on.

But generally these increases in size come in increments and you don't suddenly see a ship or plane come out that is 50% larger or longer than it's predecessor.

I know they're sites that give the measurements of the ships (in meters....damn metric system) but I'm just spitballing with the numbers because I'm too lazy to look it up and I'm going to use feet damn it because that's what we do in America no matter how ridiculous or inefficient out system of weights and measurements is.

So the original Enterprise was about 1000 feet long, about the size of a modern super carrier. I thought that was a nice size because it gave a scale people could relate to since it was an earth based vessel.

The refit added another 100 or so feet. No problem.

The Excelsior comes out and is somewhere around 1400-1500 feet long. I didn't have a problem with that because the Constitution class had been around for a long time so I kind of saw the Excelsior as the "Super Carrier" advancement in starfleet where the new ship was revolutionary and larger than anything before it. And even though it was considerably larger and longer than the Refit Enterprise it still had similar proportions and I thought the increase was within reason.

Then things start to get out of hand. The Ambassador class is considerably longer than the Excelsior, around 2000 feet....but the damn thing is at least 3-4 times as large in size overall. The ship became MUCH bulkier, the proprotions were suddenly much different and it was absolutely huge in comparison to Excelsior.

Then the Galaxy class basically takes that design and makes it even larger. Now it's around 3000 feet long and again looks at least twice as large as he class that preceded it.

The Soverign wasn't as large and bulky as the Galaxy, but again they tacked at least another 500 or so feet in length to it.

So in a century or so you've gone from a ship 1000 feet or so in length and made it at least 3 and a half times longer and ENORMOUS in terms in overall size. The other ships in starfleet seem to reflect that with the TNG Reliant decendent looking many many times bigger than the Miranda class were.

For comparison the first successful US carrier, the Lexington class, was 888 feet long and about 40,000 tons.

The newest carrier class, which will be operational for the next century at least is 1050 feet long and about 110,000 tons.

So in over a century of aircraft carrier construction they've added under 200 feet in length and about tripled the overall size of the ships.

So let's say the refit Enterprise was about 150,000 tons. The Excelsior would probably be double that at 300,000 tons. The Ambassador looked like it was AT LEAST 4 times as large as Excelsior that's 1.2 million tons. The Galaxy looked about 3 times larger than the Ambassador.....3.6 million tons. The Soverign I'll say is a wash because it's longer but not as bulky.

And future incarnations get even more ridiculous.

So, in a similar time frame, aircraft carriers have gotten 20% longer and about 3 times as large, while starships have gotten 4 times as long and 24 TIMES AS LARGE!!!!!!!

Really does each succeeding generation of starships need to be a GIANT increase over the last one.

This is also extremely impractical because of the needs of the ship. If you have a ship 24 times as large you simply can't just say...well we'll build engines 24 times as big and a generator 24 times as large to power it. You actually have to find a stronger power source that can power something that much larger.

Also the facilities to support these ships. The reason the Navy doesn't build carriers 2500 feet in length is because all the facilities, docks, dry docks, repair and refit facilities etc would have to be increased to handle these size ships which would cost billions and take years if not decades.

So starfleet, every 20 years or so has to expand all of it's support facilities to handle ships that are much larger than the ones before it?.....The time and resources to do that would be enormous.

Take the Spacedock from TSFS......I'm guessing it was built to be in orbit a LONG time, probably centuries. Yet the Enterprise didn't have a lot of room passing through the doors, Excelsior barely fit.......There's no way anything much bigger than Excelsior would clear the doors.

So what happens when the Ambassador and Galaxy class ships arrive? They just abandon the space dock and build a new one. The one in TSFS was about 8 miles long. So the one in TNG (which I know was the same one from the film with the ENT-D pasted over the 1701) would be something like 25 miles long and god knows how much larger if we believe the Ent-D could clear the doors and have the amount of room it did inside.

Can't they just stick to a reasonable scale and increase and just have the ships be a little larger, but much more sophisticated instead of deciding they need to be huge in order to show advancement from the previous class?

Resources or lack therof doesn't seem to much of an issue for the Federation, and besides you simply build bigger than you currently need to accomodate bigger ships that may or may not be on the drawing board.

As for support facilties remember we are dealing with space here, space isn't an issue so to speak. Take the brief snippets of Utopia Planitia Yards that we've seen. Surely it's just a simple case of expanding existing docks either by extending them or inserting new sections to make them wider. Even the mushroom type spacedock doors could probably be widened if needed.

Sure there was a size progression between the Consitution and Galaxy Class but the next Class to replace that type of ship was smaller the Soverign Class.

But let's examine carriers if you like. HMS Triumph was the first carreir to trial an angled flight deck so in some respects is the first of the modern carrier and had a length of 212m the latest British Carrier Class the Queen Elizabeth Class is 280m or almost 30% longer the latest US Carrier the Ford class is 337m which is about wait for it 55% longer than that first modern carrier design.