darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
So? We've had ILM people chime in two or three times now...each giving a different number.
The ONLY number we've been able to independently match measurements with any of the actual footage is the 716-762m number.
Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)
- Thread starter Strat
- Start date
- Status
So? We've had ILM people chime in two or three times now...each giving a different number.
The ONLY number we've been able to independently match measurements with any of the actual footage is the 716-762m number.
If you're talking identically-proportioned objects. The new Enterprise definitely is not! If nothing else, the nacelle shift will cut that 2x figure closer to 1.5x.
Well live in your rectangular box shaped suburban city with 500 other people not being able leave, and again its not feasable
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, that doesn't make any sense at all. The Narada wouldn't be able to be in orbit if the drill was that low in the atmosphere.
This has turned into the mother of all circular arguments
There really is no way to nail down a specific number right now. There have been so many numbers thrown out that contradict EVERY length we hear has to be taken with a grain of salt. If I was to assign ANY tiny bit of credibility to a comment, the only one that I really noticed was the one from the ILM model supervisor. The only reason I say that is because he seems to be the only one that at least hints that it is possible that they changed the scale of the ship through the movie. Although his comment of it changing from 1300 to 2000 feet can be interpreted a different way. I don't even give much credibility to that, I just liked that number the best, because it was the only length that wasn't bigger than every other ship we've ever seen in Star Trek. I fully believe that the ship was shown to us in differing scales throughout the movie. I didn't really totally believe that until i viewed the film again last night. All I have to say is, I will not be surprised with whatever figure they come out with. I do know Trek purists will be pissed if they make the 700 meters plus figure official, and I know they will probably lose a lot of older fans with that.
There really is no way to nail down a specific number right now. There have been so many numbers thrown out that contradict EVERY length we hear has to be taken with a grain of salt. If I was to assign ANY tiny bit of credibility to a comment, the only one that I really noticed was the one from the ILM model supervisor. The only reason I say that is because he seems to be the only one that at least hints that it is possible that they changed the scale of the ship through the movie. Although his comment of it changing from 1300 to 2000 feet can be interpreted a different way. I don't even give much credibility to that, I just liked that number the best, because it was the only length that wasn't bigger than every other ship we've ever seen in Star Trek. I fully believe that the ship was shown to us in differing scales throughout the movie. I didn't really totally believe that until i viewed the film again last night. All I have to say is, I will not be surprised with whatever figure they come out with. I do know Trek purists will be pissed if they make the 700 meters plus figure official, and I know they will probably lose a lot of older fans with that.Very good point...Anyone else get a feeling they are throwing out bogus numbers to possibly drive up sales for their upcoming manual? haha, just kidding...I think
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
I could live with this number, it's in the same ballpark as our independent computations.
So now that this is confirmed, has anyone got a schematic reference in relation to the Connie Refit, and the Ent-D?
I like seeing all these comparisons!
I like seeing all these comparisons!
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
So now that this is confirmed, has anyone got a schematic reference in relation to the Connie Refit, and the Ent-D?
If we accept the number, it's about 2.5x a Prime Connie Refit and ~100m longer than a Galaxy
So now that this is confirmed, has anyone got a schematic reference in relation to the Connie Refit, and the Ent-D?
If we accept the number, it's about 2.5x a Prime Connie Refit and ~100m longer than a Galaxy
That is sooooo awesome!
Talk about big!And I'm happy with it being that size too...
Mystery solved!!!TMP's Enterprise is more then large enough to accommodate 400 plus people on long missions. Keep in mind that at any given time, at least a third would more then likely be in bed- and the other 3rd, off duty in communal rec areas- canteens- in their quarters- or engaging in extra-curricular activities.
In this cross section, I have over 200 crew running down the center line alone. And on this one overhead- I have over 200 people on one deck alone (sorry for how small all the little "heads" are- they're hard to see). All comfortably located in quarters, and off duty areas. This is just one deck. Heck- if you're really squinting at the overhead view, you'll see that a whole quarter of the deck isn't even occupied!
And let's not forget that on these long missions, they're going to obviously make stops to get people of the ship to keep them from going nuts. This isn't a 1st world war cruiser were men are pretty much screwed down to their vessels until they either sink, or the war ends.
So 300 meters is huge- if you also account for the volume. Hell- some contemporary naval vessels cram more sardines in a tin then the the original Enterprise ever would.
In this cross section, I have over 200 crew running down the center line alone. And on this one overhead- I have over 200 people on one deck alone (sorry for how small all the little "heads" are- they're hard to see). All comfortably located in quarters, and off duty areas. This is just one deck. Heck- if you're really squinting at the overhead view, you'll see that a whole quarter of the deck isn't even occupied!
And let's not forget that on these long missions, they're going to obviously make stops to get people of the ship to keep them from going nuts. This isn't a 1st world war cruiser were men are pretty much screwed down to their vessels until they either sink, or the war ends.
So 300 meters is huge- if you also account for the volume. Hell- some contemporary naval vessels cram more sardines in a tin then the the original Enterprise ever would.
OK, seriously does Abrams have size issues, and a bad case of "starship envy"?!
There is no logical reason for this ship to be scaled up to this size. Plus given that it strongly sounds and appears from the visual styling cues, and comments from Bruce Holcomb that the CG model may have initially been created at 1300ft (396m), then super-sized up.
Seriously, by just adding some extra windows in the saucer rim to visually reference that there could be 3-4 decks would have gone a long way to alleviate the confusion. But ILM may not of had the time to make the substantial changes (or Paramount wouldn't give them the extra funds).
The windows are now approximately 5ft in height, and the docking ports 14ft diameter!
I'd been slowly warming up & liking this design, but at these scale numbers - not so sure anymore.
There is no logical reason for this ship to be scaled up to this size. Plus given that it strongly sounds and appears from the visual styling cues, and comments from Bruce Holcomb that the CG model may have initially been created at 1300ft (396m), then super-sized up.
Seriously, by just adding some extra windows in the saucer rim to visually reference that there could be 3-4 decks would have gone a long way to alleviate the confusion. But ILM may not of had the time to make the substantial changes (or Paramount wouldn't give them the extra funds).
The windows are now approximately 5ft in height, and the docking ports 14ft diameter!
I'd been slowly warming up & liking this design, but at these scale numbers - not so sure anymore.
2357 feet. That's at least within the context of TNG ships. I guess the hard part to get one's head around is the diameter of the saucer alone is just about the length of the entire TMP Enterprise. Given they more than doubled the size of the ship, we should at least be grateful they didn't radically alter its shape.
So, the ship is about 535 feet tall from the top of a nacelle to the bottom of the secondary hull; 435 feet from the top of the primary hull to the bottom of the secondary hull; and 1600 feet from the tip of the primary hull to end of the shuttle bay.
When Kirk saw it in Riverside perched on its scaffolding, it was probably about 650 to the top of a nacelle, give or take. That's not a lot taller than the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. So, that's not unreasonable for him to be looking up at from where he was, either. So, I'll take it.
I guess we can assume a little more than double the crew size from TOS, too. Which makes sense if over 800 people were on the Kelvin.
So, the ship is about 535 feet tall from the top of a nacelle to the bottom of the secondary hull; 435 feet from the top of the primary hull to the bottom of the secondary hull; and 1600 feet from the tip of the primary hull to end of the shuttle bay.
When Kirk saw it in Riverside perched on its scaffolding, it was probably about 650 to the top of a nacelle, give or take. That's not a lot taller than the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. So, that's not unreasonable for him to be looking up at from where he was, either. So, I'll take it.
I guess we can assume a little more than double the crew size from TOS, too. Which makes sense if over 800 people were on the Kelvin.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
^The problem with your plans (and every other set I've seen, so don't feel too bad) is consumables. 400+ people for 5 years requires a LOT of food, water, and air. On top of that, all the infrastructure to distribute, collect and recyle it.
at 500 liters of O2/person/day, a crew of 400 would need 200,000 liters of O2 per day.
at 2 liters of water/person/day, the same crew would require 800 liters of water just for drinking purposes/day.
at 3-4 lbs of food/person/day, a crew of 400 would require 1200-1600 lbs of food/day.
Multiply that x 365 days x 5 years.
Even if you allow for recycling (which is a must in a closed-loop life system like a starship), you are not going to get 100% reclamation. So you have to allow for that in figuring how much consumables to store. You also have to allow for reserves to cover emergencies (hull breaches, tank ruptures, etc).
And what happens if your life recycling systems break down in deep space? You're going to need to keep many days supply of consumables on hand for such a contingency, assuming NO useful reclamation.
Any way you look at it, that's an awful lot of tankage space that you've taken up stuffing crew quarters, labs, and what not into every available sq meter of deck space.
at 500 liters of O2/person/day, a crew of 400 would need 200,000 liters of O2 per day.
at 2 liters of water/person/day, the same crew would require 800 liters of water just for drinking purposes/day.
at 3-4 lbs of food/person/day, a crew of 400 would require 1200-1600 lbs of food/day.
Multiply that x 365 days x 5 years.
Even if you allow for recycling (which is a must in a closed-loop life system like a starship), you are not going to get 100% reclamation. So you have to allow for that in figuring how much consumables to store. You also have to allow for reserves to cover emergencies (hull breaches, tank ruptures, etc).
And what happens if your life recycling systems break down in deep space? You're going to need to keep many days supply of consumables on hand for such a contingency, assuming NO useful reclamation.
Any way you look at it, that's an awful lot of tankage space that you've taken up stuffing crew quarters, labs, and what not into every available sq meter of deck space.
The guy from http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org is going to be furious. I eagerly await another 12-page article/rant about how this is "all wrong" and how Ryan Church and JJ should be shot.
I don't think comsumables are that big a factor with a technology which has replicators and matter-energy-matter conversion. Pike's TOS Enterprise had a crew half the classic's number because that technology was not as advanced. The Star Trek 6 'kitchen' was a VIP one (after all some guests like Klingons like 'real' food, sometimes alive).
The TOS & TMP Enterprise's did not ahve the replicator tech as advanced as TNG, but in TOS we saw several cases where a data card or button push resulted in Chicken Soup of Ice Cream out of the food slots. Clothing was not washed but 'dismantled' and recombined without the dirt present.
It is a good thing too as a tailor would have a full time job repairing Kirk's ripped shirts...
- Status
Similar threads
