• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Discovery Size Argument™ thread

The vengeance is around 1.4 KM long

The D’Deridex is around 1KM, so close
Yeah more like the Vengeance than the D'Deridex, there is no question that Klingon ship is big, whereas the Narada is on another level both in length and mass as it was a deep space mining vessel and would need to have a huge cargo capacity for all the ore.

It's always tricky to judge size on screen as you really need to know how far apart ships are and which is closer to the camera.
 
Yeah more like the Vengeance than the D'Deridex, there is no question that Klingon ship is big, whereas the Narada is on another level both in length and mass as it was a deep space mining vessel and would need to have a huge cargo capacity for all the ore.

It's always tricky to judge size on screen as you really need to know how far apart ships are and which is closer to the camera.
Well the d’deridex is longer then the discovery
 
Well the d’deridex is longer then the discovery
Yes it is but we were talking about the Klingon Ship of the Dead, I think it's around the Vengeance in size more or less, whereas King Daniel thought it was as big as the Narada which is possible but I dont think it's on that scale.
 
Yes it is but we were talking about the Klingon Ship of the Dead, I think it's around the Vengeance in size more or less, whereas King Daniel thought it was as big as the Narada which is possible but I dont think it's on that scale.
Oh I got lost somewhere in the conversation
 
Just a thought: If anyone thought the continuity of Federation starship size evolution meant more to these people than the entire look of the Klingon race or changing the Bird of Prey and D7 battlecruisers into something closer to Death Gliders and Destiny from the Stargate franchise, you needed a reality check.

It looks like the Discovery was scaled to have the saucer rim and inner saucer diameter almost exactly match that of the classic Enterprise.

D3yrUZC.jpg


Yeah, this shit is ridiculous. This is gonna' need a LOT of headcanon to make any sense of it.

Now I'm not against large spreads in starship sizes - in fact, I'd advocate a lot for industrial type starships (like Alien's Nostromo) being a lot bigger than our classic Enterprises while having much smaller crews, and that for combat focused vessels size wouldn't correlate with strength - e.g. having very small battleships equally as powerfull as the larger carpital ships.

But these official numbers? Well, shit. I wouldn't mind it if the DIS would have been indeed depicted as a science vessel - but the writers use her as the same fast-turning combat vessel as ever Enterprise beforehand. My only explanation is that all starship sizes are way off - "classic" Trek more in the one direction, DIS more in the other... But I'm not really happy with that explanation either...
 
Why? Sizes mean squat.

The discovery is usually taking a beating and is only saved by convenience.
Indeed, also length doesn't equal mass and volume so the D is still number one in overall size.

Some just have a fixation on length being everything, if they were willing to mess with the iconic design of the Klingon ships they won't be afraid to mess with sizes.

It does mean that the Europa we saw could rival the D in saucer size at least.

I think the Constitution could be bigger as a consequence, in spite of its age.
 
Fixed. Thank you. I was just guessing from the model size against the Discovery.
cWGDJAi.jpg

Added in the C, and a hidden runabout.
I am thinking the saucer on the Europa could rival the saucer on the C or maybe even the D.
 
But these official numbers? Well, shit. I wouldn't mind it if the DIS would have been indeed depicted as a science vessel - but the writers use her as the same fast-turning combat vessel as ever Enterprise beforehand. My only explanation is that all starship sizes are way off - "classic" Trek more in the one direction, DIS more in the other... But I'm not really happy with that explanation either...
First of all, I'm incredibly puzzled as to what exactly you think the sizes should be based on as touchstone for "the right size." Unless you're going with the same tired assumption that size is an indicator of tech level, but even Star Trek has multiple examples of this not being the case.

It only takes one explanation in headcanon: these are the normal sizes that EVERYONE builds these ships. Klingons, Romulans, Humans, Vulcans, Ferengi, etc. Exploration/science vessels are usually about the same size; scout/survey vessels are usually about the same size; heavy cruisers are usually all about the same size, and so on. This explains why NX-01 and the TOS Enterprise are nearly the same size despite being 100 years apart, and why Voyager, with almost the same mission profile, is similar in size to a Constitution or an Excelsior of a hundred years earlier. It explains why the Kelvin Enterprise, a mid-range explorer, is similar in size to the Ambassador class while the enormous battle-ready Dreadnaught Class is in the weight class of a D'Deridex or a Negh'Var. It also probably puts Kelvin and Shenzhou in more or less the same weight class. And in the mean time, all these ships with similar mission profiles wind up being in similar sizes across all fleets; the Vulcan Surak-class star cruisers with their 600 meter lengths are just the 22nd century equivalents of Discovery, while the slightly smaller D'Kyr-class class cruisers are the heavier and tougher Shenzhou/Kelvins.
 
First of all, I'm incredibly puzzled as to what exactly you think the sizes should be based on as touchstone for "the right size." Unless you're going with the same tired assumption that size is an indicator of tech level, but even Star Trek has multiple examples of this not being the case.

It only takes one explanation in headcanon: these are the normal sizes that EVERYONE builds these ships. Klingons, Romulans, Humans, Vulcans, Ferengi, etc. Exploration/science vessels are usually about the same size; scout/survey vessels are usually about the same size; heavy cruisers are usually all about the same size, and so on. This explains why NX-01 and the TOS Enterprise are nearly the same size despite being 100 years apart, and why Voyager, with almost the same mission profile, is similar in size to a Constitution or an Excelsior of a hundred years earlier. It explains why the Kelvin Enterprise, a mid-range explorer, is similar in size to the Ambassador class while the enormous battle-ready Dreadnaught Class is in the weight class of a D'Deridex or a Negh'Var. It also probably puts Kelvin and Shenzhou in more or less the same weight class. And in the mean time, all these ships with similar mission profiles wind up being in similar sizes across all fleets; the Vulcan Surak-class star cruisers with their 600 meter lengths are just the 22nd century equivalents of Discovery, while the slightly smaller D'Kyr-class class cruisers are the heavier and tougher Shenzhou/Kelvins.

Dude, what?

That's specifically the problem: The Shenzhou and Discovery specifically DON'T match that "regular" size we expect from our combat ready multi-purpose vessel. Furthermore, all your examples are waay off - the NX-01 is certainly not in the same range as the TOS Enterprise - it's just flatter. The VOY - a smaller exploratory ship - is about the same size as the most prestigious class of starships 100 years earlier. The Excelsior is a lot bigger than the Connie, and a lot smaller than the Galaxy. It's almost as if.... things had made sense? Like, there has had been a certain size limitations for starships, making our Enterprises always the "biggest" combat ready vessels (of Federation technology), with starships of all smaller sizes existing, and larger ones usually being cargo-ships or other, not such high-technology-demanding ships. That is why the new sizes don't really fit in with previous canon.

But hell - specific starship sizes have always been applied very liberally on Trek before. Until we see a clear on-screen side-by-side view of the DIS and a familiar starship, we don't actually really know how the sizes are meant to relate to each other.
 
Dude, what?

That's specifically the problem: The Shenzhou and Discovery specifically DON'T match that "regular" size we expect from our combat ready multi-purpose vessel.
Of course they do. Shenzhou is similar in size to the Vorcha and Excelsior class starships that serve as a "patrol along the frontier" capacity. It's larger than the Excelsior and Intrepid class ships that do mostly patrol duty in the poorly-explored backwoods relatively close to home. But it's also smaller than the large, heavily armed science vessels like the Discovery or Nebula class, fast general-purpose ships with big guns but a short overall range. And all in all they're much smaller than the mid to long range explorers like the Kelvin Connie, Sovereign, Ambassador and Galaxy class ships.

Furthermore, all your examples are waay off - the NX-01 is certainly not in the same range as the TOS Enterprise
In terms of overall volume, the 1701 is only 7% larger than the NX-01. By comparison: the Refit Enterprise is actually 10% larger than the TOS version. This can be a surprising statistic until you consider the NX-class saucer is much thicker than the Constitution's despite having almost the same width and length, and the bulging catamaran hulls are both large enough to almost make up for the mass of the secondary hull. If NX-01 had the same sized nacelles as the Constitution class, it would be LARGER overall.

And if they had gone through with NX-01's proposed refit -- adding a proper secondary hull Constitution style -- it would be significantly larger than the TOS Enterprise.

The VOY - a smaller exploratory ship - is about the same size as the most prestigious class of starships 100 years earlier.
We never knew what the most prestiguous starships of 100 years earlier actually were. TOS gave us no reason to believe the Constitutions were among them.

But even then, you're still wrong. Voyager's internal volume is more than three times that of the TOS Constitution while being only 15% smaller than Excelsior. It's essentially something of a middle step between them, despite the fact that all three have similar mission profiles.

The Excelsior is a lot bigger than the Connie, and a lot smaller than the Galaxy. It's almost as if.... things had made sense? Like, there has had been a certain size limitations for starships, making our Enterprises always the "biggest" combat ready vessels
Even in the TMP years, that has never been true. Of the 5 starship designs we saw in the TOS era, the actual TOS version of the ship was the smallest of the bunch. Reliant and Grissom (when it was scaled at its original design length) were both significantly larger than the TOS Enterprise.

Meanwhile, 100 years earlier, NX-01 -- which is already similar in size to a Constitution class -- is easily dwarfed by starships of the Vulcan and Andorian fleets. So there have not, in fact, been any binding size limitations on how large ships could be.

There seems, on the contrary, to be an "ideal" size or range of sizes for an ideal mission role. The existence of smalls hips like the Nova class and (modern interpretations of) the Oberth class suggest the smallest and most versatile of these would be "cruisers," ships which are remarkably well armed for their size but also carry the scientific payload you'd usually see on much larger ships. Unlike bigger vessels like Discovery they wouldn't be capable of performing multiple independent science missions at once, but they would be able to collect data from targets of opportunity and investigate specific points of interest. This small category could be called "cruisers" and the TOS Enterprise and later Reliant would be right at the upper limit of that class, hence it is a "heavy cruiser."

But hell - specific starship sizes have always been applied very liberally on Trek before. Until we see a clear on-screen side-by-side view of the DIS and a familiar starship, we don't actually really know how the sizes are meant to relate to each other.
There's an element of wishful thinking in your post, IMO, but it's pretty much a given at this point that Discovery version of Constitution class is going to be significantly larger and more powerful than the Crossfield. They may not be using the Kelvinverse design for it, but it would be amazing if they didn't produce something that was at least in the same general weight class.
 
Of course they do. Shenzhou is similar in size to the Vorcha and Excelsior class starships that serve as a "patrol along the frontier" capacity. It's larger than the Excelsior and Intrepid class ships that do mostly patrol duty in the poorly-explored backwoods relatively close to home. But it's also smaller than the large, heavily armed science vessels like the Discovery or Nebula class, fast general-purpose ships with big guns but a short overall range. And all in all they're much smaller than the mid to long range explorers like the Kelvin Connie, Sovereign, Ambassador and Galaxy class ships.

In terms of overall volume, the 1701 is only 7% larger than the NX-01. By comparison: the Refit Enterprise is actually 10% larger than the TOS version. This can be a surprising statistic until you consider the NX-class saucer is much thicker than the Constitution's despite having almost the same width and length, and the bulging catamaran hulls are both large enough to almost make up for the mass of the secondary hull. If NX-01 had the same sized nacelles as the Constitution class, it would be LARGER overall.

And if they had gone through with NX-01's proposed refit -- adding a proper secondary hull Constitution style -- it would be significantly larger than the TOS Enterprise.

We never knew what the most prestiguous starships of 100 years earlier actually were. TOS gave us no reason to believe the Constitutions were among them.

But even then, you're still wrong. Voyager's internal volume is more than three times that of the TOS Constitution while being only 15% smaller than Excelsior. It's essentially something of a middle step between them, despite the fact that all three have similar mission profiles.

Even in the TMP years, that has never been true. Of the 5 starship designs we saw in the TOS era, the actual TOS version of the ship was the smallest of the bunch. Reliant and Grissom (when it was scaled at its original design length) were both significantly larger than the TOS Enterprise.

Meanwhile, 100 years earlier, NX-01 -- which is already similar in size to a Constitution class -- is easily dwarfed by starships of the Vulcan and Andorian fleets. So there have not, in fact, been any binding size limitations on how large ships could be.

There seems, on the contrary, to be an "ideal" size or range of sizes for an ideal mission role. The existence of smalls hips like the Nova class and (modern interpretations of) the Oberth class suggest the smallest and most versatile of these would be "cruisers," ships which are remarkably well armed for their size but also carry the scientific payload you'd usually see on much larger ships. Unlike bigger vessels like Discovery they wouldn't be capable of performing multiple independent science missions at once, but they would be able to collect data from targets of opportunity and investigate specific points of interest. This small category could be called "cruisers" and the TOS Enterprise and later Reliant would be right at the upper limit of that class, hence it is a "heavy cruiser."

There's an element of wishful thinking in your post, IMO, but it's pretty much a given at this point that Discovery version of Constitution class is going to be significantly larger and more powerful than the Crossfield. They may not be using the Kelvinverse design for it, but it would be amazing if they didn't produce something that was at least in the same general weight class.

I don't know where you pull those numbers from, but.... dayum, are they off.
 
I don't know where you pull those numbers from, but.... dayum, are they off.
I did some of the calculations myself with Sketchup models. Most of them are from -- or vertified by -- the old Volumetrics page:

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics.html

What seems off about them, exactly? Or are you still on the assumption that the LENGTH of a starship is a good indicator of its overall size? As I'll again point out, the Vehicle Assembly Building at Cape Canaveral is almost 15 times larger than the Enterprise but still isn't big enough to fit it inside (the 1701 is longer, taller and wider in every dimension).
 
I did some of the calculations myself with Sketchup models. Most of them are from -- or vertified by -- the old Volumetrics page:

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics.html

What seems off about them, exactly? Or are you still on the assumption that the LENGTH of a starship is a good indicator of its overall size? As I'll again point out, the Vehicle Assembly Building at Cape Canaveral is almost 15 times larger than the Enterprise but still isn't big enough to fit it inside (the 1701 is longer, taller and wider in every dimension).

Yeah, looking at this page, that would easily explain why you're numbers are so wrong. Reminds me a lot of this:

http://www.questarian.com/

Not that there's something wrong with it! I love me some fan going the extra mile and expanding his ideas on the Interwebs with that much passion. You just really shouldn't take everything at face value.
 
Yeah, looking at this page, that would easily explain why you're numbers are so wrong. Reminds me a lot of this:

http://www.questarian.com/

Not that there's something wrong with it! I love me some fan going the extra mile and expanding his ideas on the Interwebs with that much passion. You just really shouldn't take everything at face value.
Thing is, I actually checked alot of those figures with my own models and they're pretty accurate. I checked for the same reason you're implying: the numbers really didn't seem accurate to me at all (and his estimates for mass, based on a lot of bad/biased assumptions, are way off) but the figures for overall volume are solid.

Yes, alot of those numbers are quite surprising. But when you actually look into why that is, it makes sense. NX-01 vs. 1701 is the biggest surprise of all, and it took me a while to sort out exactly why that was. Mainly, it's the extremely "fatness" of the saucer section and its bulging catamarans that throw off the total, and the fact that 1701s lengthiest components are also its skinniest (the saucer section is 180 meters in diameter, but tapers down to one and a half deck in an area where NX-01 is mostly 3 decks thick).

The overall point is that this neat linear progression of sizes for Starfleet vessels is totally -- repeat TOTALLY -- illusory, nor is there any support whatsoever for the supposition that the Constitution was the largest ship of its time or even, for that matter, notably large. Quite the contrary, it seems that starships have ALWAYS come in a variety of sizes depending on their mission role, and there is no correlation at all between tech level and starship size. So he TOS Constitution is not the 23rd century equivlent of the Galaxy class; it IS the 23rd century equivalent of something similar to the Intrepid. The Federation was probably building ships similar to the size of the Galaxy class even in the 23rd century; those large ships were nowhere near as advanced or sophisticated, to be sure, but size is not the same thing as tech level.
 
nor is there any support whatsoever for the supposition that the Constitution was the largest ship of its time or even, for that matter, notably large. Quite the contrary, it seems that starships have ALWAYS come in a variety of sizes depending on their mission role, and there is no correlation at all between tech level and starship size. So he TOS Constitution is not the 23rd century equivlent of the Galaxy class; it IS the 23rd century equivalent of something similar to the Intrepid. The Federation was probably building ships similar to the size of the Galaxy class even in the 23rd century;

That whole supposition seems to me as groundless and unsupported as the one that tries to dispute. Even more unsubstantiated because it is contradictory to empirical evidence. (And no, as far as I’m concerned, Kelvin film & DSC ships can’t be used as corroborations and don’t help us reach for safe conclusions about TOS era Starfleet.)
 
That whole supposition seems to me as groundless and unsupported as the one that tries to dispute. Even more unsubstantiated because it is contradictory to empirical evidence.
There's no empirical evidence that the Galaxy class enterprise-D and the Constitution class Enterprise had similar missions. In the first place, we know for a fact that they didn't, as the latter had a mission of finite duration (five years) while the Galaxy class had a mission of indefinite/ongoing duration and a vastly different crew complement that included civilian scientists and consultants along with their families. Given that USS Kelvin is a starship common to both timelines, with a much larger crew that included married couples and at least one child, we now have a concrete proof of the Galaxy's 23rd century counterpart.

And no, as far as I’m concerned, Kelvin film & DSC ships can’t be used as corroborations
Kelvin itself can, as already mentioned. And choosing to exclude ships from Discovery is, at this point, a very odd stance that becomes less and less stable by the minute.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top