Starship Size Argument™ thread

[Gonzo]

You misunderstand my point, the angled supports for the second level narrow the open floorspace on the deck to only the width of the "runway". Thus any vessel much wider than a standard shuttle craft would crash into them rather than be able to land safely in the shuttlebay, thus wasting a great advantage of having so much room to begin with.

You do realise that they fly in and aren't rolled across the floor, the pylons are much further apart as you get higher in the air, the ceiling in that shuttle bay is very high indeed.

The pylons are there not just to support the roof but to support the racks upon which the shuttles are landed, it's really obvious if you actually look closely.

 

[Gonzo]

Shuttle bay says it all. A Connie holds four shuttles. The Abramsverse Connie looks to hold, at least, a dozen much larger shuttles.

I think they actually have a secret brewery in there as well, it would explain a lot.

 

[Gonzo]

But I'm not wrong lol. Thank you for playing.

Oh no the denial is back again.

Bit of a false dawn there.

 

[starmike]

Going from the IMs I've been getting, it seems like what the designers did was inconsistent. They make it look big inside, but it looks like a TMP-sized ship outside. So people can say "oh the shuttle bay makes it look so big because of the 40' shuttles", but then you have a shot of Kirk running past a window which isn't even a tall window, on the outer ring (with two decks) and yet it's supposed to be the same height as the TOS refit but 2x as long? Simple geometry shows that's not the case.

So, maybe both sides are right and the filmmakers screwed up.

 

[Gonzo]

Going from the IMs I've been getting, it seems like what the designers did was inconsistent. They make it look big inside, but it looks like a TMP-sized ship outside. So people can say "oh the shuttle bay makes it look so big because of the 40' shuttles", but then you have a shot of Kirk running past a window which isn't even a tall window, on the outer ring (with two decks) and yet it's supposed to be the same height as the TOS refit but 2x as long? Simple geometry shows that's not the case.

So, maybe both sides are right and the filmmakers screwed up.

Annnnnd were back to bargaining again.

Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.

 

[starmike]

What are you even talking about? "Bargaining"? You can't accept it may just be a mistake?

Lots of movies make mistakes.

 

[BillJ]

Lots of movies make mistakes.

Whatever mistakes were made, the official word is that it is 725 meters.

 

[starmike]

Whatever mistakes were made, the official word is that it is 725 meters.

And Han didn't shoot first. Your point?

 

[Gonzo]

What are you even talking about? "Bargaining"? You can't accept it may just be a mistake?

Lots of movies make mistakes.

You started by making flat out absolute statements that the filmmakers got it all wrong and that it's actually the same size as the original movie versions.

After having your entire argument torn to pieces by multiple members of the thread who have may I add seen it all before, you are now at the bargaining stage to try to make yourself look like you are being reasonable and to avoid having to accept the actual size of the new ship.

Denial
To
Bargaining
To
Acceptance

Unfortunately you are still just as wrong as you were at the start.

 

[starmike]

Gonzo,
I don't know what stunt you're trying to pull, but it's not working. I've shown multiple examples of how the proportion of person height to ship doesn't work out to 700+ meters, and yet you still want to argue. Despite evidence.

You can reply all you want, you won't change my mind.

 

[Tomalak]

How big is the ship based on an obvious external feature that is directly featured on a set as well?

In other words, how big is the ship scaled to an 8' bridge window?

 

[starmike]

There was a post a few pages back where an artist did a deck rendering of the nuE, and showed that the outer edge of the saucer must have 6 decks, which is completely inconsistent with the two decks that are on-screen (and the decks are only 8' tall).

 

[BillJ]

You can reply all you want, you won't change my mind.

Then the conversation has no purpose other than you trying to force your views on others.

 

[starmike]

Then the conversation has no purpose other than you trying to force your views on others.

Funny since I'm not trying to force anything, and this thread was 80 pages before I got here.

Nice attempt at deflection.

 

[Tomalak]

How big is the ship based on an obvious external feature that is directly featured on a set as well?

In other words, how big is the ship scaled to an 8' bridge window?

Hmm, even Bernd (after some strange jiggery-pokery) can't make the ship smaller than 450m based on the window. Interesting.

 

[Gonzo]

Then the conversation has no purpose other than you trying to force your views on others.

It boils down to the same thing it always does.

I don't want it to be that big.

It's not fair.

 

[BillJ]

Nice attempt at deflection.

Not deflection. But when someone says nothing will change their mind, there isn't much point in a discussion.

 

[starmike]

When visual evidence shows the contrary, why should someone accept what's wrong as fact?

 

[BillJ]

When visual evidence shows the contrary, why should someone accept what's wrong as fact?

The visual evidence of the shuttle bay and engineering point to a ship much larger than 366 meters. The bridge viewscreen points to a ship larger than 366 meters. The plaza points to a ship much larger than 366 meters. Folks grasped onto what we see on the saucer edge. But the preponderance of evidence shows a ship much larger than 366 meters.

And, you have the folks who designed it stating it is 725 meters. Unless we have something ironclad on-screen that contradicts that notion, I tend to go with it.

 

[starmike]

The visual evidence of the shuttle bay and engineering point to a ship much larger than 366 meters. The bridge viewscreen points to a ship larger than 366 meters. The plaza points to a ship much larger than 366 meters. Folks grasped onto what we see on the saucer edge. But the preponderance of evidence shows a ship much larger than 366 meters.

Two decks on the outer ring of the saucer point to a ship that's 366m.
The size of the docking ports point to a ship that's 366m.
The size of the people working on the Enterprise in the 2009 film point to a ship that's 366m.
The size of Kirk and Chekov sliding down the Enterprise in Beyond point to a ship that's not even close to 700+ meters, and far closer to 366m.
The shot of Kirk running against a window clearly points to a ship that's 366m.

Your point?