Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[EJD1984]

I'm also working on a project at work that is being done in metric, and amongst the mechanical team there's still an occasional misinterpretation in conversions between metric & english

Happens at my company with alarming regularity. I seem to recall NASA's Mars Orbiter falling prey to that sort of error as well.

That was actually a problem in the flight software from the contractor. Was initially written in miles/english, but someone forgot to convert it over to kilometers/metric............Oops

Overtime I've come to call work Comedy Central

 

[miraclefan]

I'm also working on a project at work that is being done in metric, and amongst the mechanical team there's still an occasional misinterpretation in conversions between metric & english

Happens at my company with alarming regularity. I seem to recall NASA's Mars Orbiter falling prey to that sort of error as well.

Now THAT'S FRIGHTING!

 

[Kpnuts]

hmm it's seems to vary I estimated 2,900 ft.
(see above)

You can't work out height using a perspective shot like that. It doesn't work. The height of the saucer would be more than that.

looked pretty flat to me, although granted it isn't 100% flat on perspective wise ...or nearly besides my data isn't that far off other estimates...

It's a perspective shot, and a fairly distorted one at that (the closest point is very close to the camera). It doesn't matter if visually it looks flat to the front of the ship, because it's a 3D object measuring from top to bottom can't work. Unless the saucer had a depth of about 1 metre or less, in which case the margin for error would be negligable. Because the saucer diametre is far longer than a 1metre, it just won't work.

 

[gimpy117]

You can't work out height using a perspective shot like that. It doesn't work. The height of the saucer would be more than that.

looked pretty flat to me, although granted it isn't 100% flat on perspective wise ...or nearly besides my data isn't that far off other estimates...

It's a perspective shot, and a fairly distorted one at that (the closest point is very close to the camera). It doesn't matter if visually it looks flat to the front of the ship, because it's a 3D object measuring from top to bottom can't work. Unless the saucer had a depth of about 1 metre or less, in which case the margin for error would be negligable. Because the saucer diametre is far longer than a 1metre, it just won't work.

I concede defeat but my data isn't that far off so at least give me that ...some estimates put her at 3,000 feet,

now I did come up with an Idea why she is so big and advanced, is it possible that the Kelvin got off a scan or two of the Naradia? I mean they were scanning and sending back to starfleet so it's possible...maybe Starfleet got the data of the workings and used a little of the know-how to make the Enterprise a little better, I'm sure due to other tech they couldn't duplicate the weapons etc. but they could most likely use some data.

 

[EJD1984]

I wonder if Ryan Church has any word/comments as to the official size of the NuEnterprise.

Did he just do the initial concepts & art direction for the ship with the assumption that his sketches were similar in size to the original E? Then the producers played with the size once the production was under way.

 

[Mike Farley]

I'm also working on a project at work that is being done in metric, and amongst the mechanical team there's still an occasional misinterpretation in conversions between metric & english

Happens at my company with alarming regularity. I seem to recall NASA's Mars Orbiter falling prey to that sort of error as well.

Heh, I saw something similar happen once at a concert I went to. At one point a Stonehenge Monument descends from the rafters. It's obviously supposed to be large and impressive...but it turned out to be tiny and in danger of being trod upon by a dwarf.

Sometimes details get screwed up.

 

[Mysterion]

^^^^
nuEnterprise goes to eleven.

 

[Irishman]

Well boys and girls, here is ANOTHER data point for the length of the Enterprise--this article at CG Society puts the alternate timeline Enterprise at 2,357 feet (718 meters) in length.

OK, I'm now officially annoyed. I try not to be a nerdball about minutiae like this, but would it have killed TPTB to figure out how big the hero ship is supposed to be?! Grr.

I wouldn't give the measurements in the CG Society article much merit, because they also refer to the new shuttle as being 30' long, which it clearly isn't.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Heh, I saw something similar happen once at a concert I went to. At one point a Stonehenge Monument descends from the rafters. It's obviously supposed to be large and impressive...but it turned out to be tiny and in danger of being trod upon by a dwarf.

"I think that the problem may have been that there was a starship in Iowa that was in danger of being crushed by a dwarf. Alright? That tended to understate the hugeness of the object".

 

[dougkeenan]

I wouldn't give the measurements in the CG Society article much merit, because they also refer to the new shuttle as being 30' long, which it clearly isn't.

It's clearly longer, more like 12m. Good eye.

 

[EJD1984]

Well boys and girls, here is ANOTHER data point for the length of the Enterprise--this article at CG Society puts the alternate timeline Enterprise at 2,357 feet (718 meters) in length.

OK, I'm now officially annoyed. I try not to be a nerdball about minutiae like this, but would it have killed TPTB to figure out how big the hero ship is supposed to be?! Grr.

I wouldn't give the measurements in the CG Society article much merit, because they also refer to the new shuttle as being 30' long, which it clearly isn't.

Maybe they're referring to the original Desilu studio mockup.

 

[Lt. Trull]

does having the information on trektoday make it official....

Is the enterprise now officially 2357 feet or 718.414 meters. I like it... bigger is better.

 

[Squiggy]

does having the information on trektoday make it official....

No.

 

[Alrik]

does having the information on trektoday make it official....

Is the enterprise now officially 2357 feet or 718.414 meters. I like it... bigger is better.

I don't know about official. But there is some credibility to it.

From the article here: http://www.trektoday.com/content/2009/05/star-trek-xi-creating-the-magic.html

..."Russell Earl, ILM co-visual effects supervisor explained how to fulfill Director J.J. Abrams need for reality-based effects. "We tried to develop different, what we called neighborhoods in space," he said. "We didn't just want a black void of space with stars. There are different beats in the film, so we have distinct areas."

Models were not used for the ships; which ranged from shuttlecraft, to the 2,357 foot long Enterprise, to the five mile long Narada. The team studied real life vessels, such as cruise ships, for reference. "When you really look at something like a cruise ship or a Naval vessel you see just how much imperfection there is," said Earl."

 

[F. King Daniel]

Has anyone thought of finding out how big the “industrial location” was that was used for the brewery (apologies if that's already come up)? If anyone could find floorplans or something that would probably give us a fairly definitive size of the engineering hull, and would no doubt give us a size inconsistent with either the bridge or the shuttlebay ;-)

 

[Anticitizen]

does having the information on trektoday make it official....

Is the enterprise now officially 2357 feet or 718.414 meters. I like it... bigger is better.

Why is bigger better, from a storytelling standpoint?

One thing I haven't heard anyone mention is the 800+ crew complement of the Kelvin, roughly double the typical crew complement of the TOS Constitution. And that's just the number of survivors. Is the new Enterprise staffed with 1,000+ crewmembers, like the Galaxy class?

 

[sunburn800]

I think we need to forget everything we knew about star trek. this is a new ship and universe. so size, warp speed and events have changed from what we know, maybe this time they will do a better job of making it all work out.this style of trek seems to be what the people want, I for one can live with the changes after all isn't that what lifes about? changes

 

[EnsignRicky]

I thought it was 1024 X 768.

 

[Johnnymuffintop]

does having the information on trektoday make it official....

Is the enterprise now officially 2357 feet or 718.414 meters. I like it... bigger is better.

Why is bigger better, from a storytelling standpoint?

One thing I haven't heard anyone mention is the 800+ crew complement of the Kelvin, roughly double the typical crew complement of the TOS Constitution. And that's just the number of survivors. Is the new Enterprise staffed with 1,000+ crewmembers, like the Galaxy class?

Like I've said before, it's quite possible that there was another ship in distress that the Kelvin came to give aid to when the Narada showed up. By colliding with the Narada, George Kirk managed to disable it allowing all the shuttles as well as the other ship to escape... maybe.

 

[M'Sharak]

Has anyone thought of finding out how big the “industrial location” was that was used for the brewery (apologies if that's already come up)? If anyone could find floorplans or something that would probably give us a fairly definitive size of the engineering hull, and would no doubt give us a size inconsistent with either the bridge or the shuttlebay ;-)

The plant is gigantic, but the size of the space where the filming was done? While I'm certain that floor plans exist, I'm less sure that they'd be easily available to the general public.