Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[Shaw]

^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.

It is funny, people of any day and age believe that they are at the pinnacle of technology and that all that is to come is already known to us.

You are saying that you know what will be in a few hundred years based on what you think you know today.

Lets look at the reverse. Take the capabilities of today's submarines... how long they can stay submerged, how many crew they can support, what speeds they can run at, etc., and imagine how people of Jules Verne's era (the 1870s) would react to a description of them. They would say that fuel needs, air needs, etc. would make those abilities impossible... absolute fantasy!

A little more than a hundred years ago people would believe that things we take for granted today were unimaginable. Think about the limits that they would have set on a believable story set in the year 2009. Your limits on what could happen in the 2250s are comparable to theirs.

You think this and that would be impossible... think about all the impossibilities from a little over a hundred years ago that are possible today, and remember that we are talking about stuff that is nearly twice as far into the future.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That article at the CG Society has been available for a couple of weeks.

I don't like the idea of the Enterprise being that huge. Just don't like it. But, there you are.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^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.

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...

1) you never HAD "matter/energy conversion", you had matter RECONFIGURATION". You had to have matter to begin with.

2) Even Trek tech is NOT all powerful and all capable. Depending on 100% continuous recycling of the same limited stock of raw materials, even IF possible (which it is not) is a sure-fire recipie for killing the crew the first time the ship has a major malfunction (let alone gets into a fight).

3) Left one SUPREMELY important factor off: FUEL. hundreds of thousands of kgs of deuterium and anti-deuterium. Gotta store THAT somewhere too.

 

[section9]

http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/09/new-details-on-star-trek-vfx-ship-sizes-revealed/

• shuttle: 30 feet long ( handled by ILM)
• Enterprise: 2,357 feet long (ILM)
• Narada 5 miles long + drill cable also 5 miles (ILM)

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.

Yeah, I don't get his obsession with the size of the ship. The notion that a ship with the deep space mission of the E and with as many people as it has could retain the original size is a mystery to me.

In 1966, the U.S.S. Enterprise (the carrier) was considered quite huge. Now, it's something quite ordinary. ILM's design is clearly for a ship that can be a heavy battle cruiser if needs be.

Makes one wonder if the Federation ever invested in aircraft carriers, assuming their fictional navy is built similar to the U.S. Navy's "task force" system of our day.

 

[section9]

^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.

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...

1) you never HAD "matter/energy conversion", you had matter RECONFIGURATION". You had to have matter to begin with.

2) Even Trek tech is NOT all powerful and all capable. Depending on 100% continuous recycling of the same limited stock of raw materials, even IF possible (which it is not) is a sure-fire recipie for killing the crew the first time the ship has a major malfunction (let alone gets into a fight).

3) Left one SUPREMELY important factor off: FUEL. hundreds of thousands of kgs of deuterium and anti-deuterium. Gotta store THAT somewhere too.

One of the reasons to make the ship larger, even with a crew of 1200, is to store "food and consumables" packets for long journeys in a relatively large space.

Uh, for example, we all basically "know" how the Food Replicator works. It brings new meaning to the term "shit sandwich". However, you still need new matter for the reasons you listed above: what happens when the warp drive goes offline and you need to drift for a month until Starfleet gets to you?

You're fucked, that's what.

So, making the E bigger makes sense. The TOS Enterprise always struck me, given the comparative sizes of the Galaxy class ships that came after it, as a good-sized destroyer or frigate, not a heavy battle cruiser.

Be interesting to see the Tech Manual that is issued to fleece the Geeks.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, but this ship is never going to go off on long voyages far away from any support or human civilization. It's going to zip off on one emergency jaunt after another to fight some evil dude who's about to blow something or another all to fuck.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^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.

It is funny, people of any day and age believe that they are at the pinnacle of technology and that all that is to come is already known to us.

You are saying that you know what will be in a few hundred years based on what you think you know today.

Lets look at the reverse. Take the capabilities of today's submarines... how long they can stay submerged, how many crew they can support, what speeds they can run at, etc., and imagine how people of Jules Verne's era (the 1870s) would react to a description of them. They would say that fuel needs, air needs, etc. would make those abilities impossible... absolute fantasy!

A little more than a hundred years ago people would believe that things we take for granted today were unimaginable. Think about the limits that they would have set on a believable story set in the year 2009. Your limits on what could happen in the 2250s are comparable to theirs.

You think this and that would be impossible... think about all the impossibilities from a little over a hundred years ago that are possible today, and remember that we are talking about stuff that is nearly twice as far into the future.

You are imbuing technology with the omnipotence property more accuratly assigned to magic. No amount of "handwavium" tech can change basic biological facts: people need X amount of oxygen, X amount of water, X amount of food, etc.

Tech may make it easier to store, transport, deliver, and recycle, but it can't replace the need to have initial stocks to start the process PLUS a suitable safety reserve.

 

[Patrickivan]

^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.

It is funny, people of any day and age believe that they are at the pinnacle of technology and that all that is to come is already known to us.

You are saying that you know what will be in a few hundred years based on what you think you know today.

Lets look at the reverse. Take the capabilities of today's submarines... how long they can stay submerged, how many crew they can support, what speeds they can run at, etc., and imagine how people of Jules Verne's era (the 1870s) would react to a description of them. They would say that fuel needs, air needs, etc. would make those abilities impossible... absolute fantasy!

A little more than a hundred years ago people would believe that things we take for granted today were unimaginable. Think about the limits that they would have set on a believable story set in the year 2009. Your limits on what could happen in the 2250s are comparable to theirs.

You think this and that would be impossible... think about all the impossibilities from a little over a hundred years ago that are possible today, and remember that we are talking about stuff that is nearly twice as far into the future.

You are imbuing technology with the omnipotence property more accuratly assigned to magic. No amount of "handwavium" tech can change basic biological facts: people need X amount of oxygen, X amount of water, X amount of food, etc.

Tech may make it easier to store, transport, deliver, and recycle, but it can't replace the need to have initial stocks to start the process PLUS a suitable safety reserve.

Man, do I agree with you. And what about this BS FTL technology where they "warp" space?! What a load of shit?! Where do they get that nearly infinate energy to do that?!

Sorry to be so facetious, but In this sci-fi fantasy universe they do have access to this energy. Enough to travel not only as fast the speed of light, but the ability to warp space itself and travel remarable distances. And the ability to create the energy required to take people apart to the basic building blocks of matter, store that energy (non- rewritable of course ) and put them back together like nothing happened at all!

How the hell is it less conceivable that they have the energy to create what they need? And on the way, they gather the matter that already exists in the galaxy (there's matter everywhere!) to manipulate as their tech allows? Plus they can stop at Starbases, outposts, and planets.

The galaxy is their oyster. If they have the energy and technology, then they can indeed stay out there for quite some time.

 

[SonicRanger]

Kirk clearly tells Odona in "The Mark of Gideon" that the Enterprise is carrying five years' worth of provisions and air for 430 crew.

 

[Mangledduk]

^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.

This is a good point, but do you seriously think the same guys that don't really know what number to use on the length of the vehicle really thought all this out? I doubt it. And another thing, sure, the ship could end up being this big, but I don't understand why suddenly this 718 meter figure is suddenly much more valid than it was a week ago. Guys this article has been out for awhile now. The shuttle is quoted to be 30 feet, that's why in several of my diagrams, I made the shuttles 30 feet. I made a 718 meter diagram over a week ago. This article is old news. We are still in the same boat we were a couple of days ago.

On another note, this article has many lengths that just don't seem right. The more I look at it, the less I really think those shuttles were 30 feet long. I watched the movie the other night, and those shuttles look considerably bigger than 30 feet. And five miles long for the drill for the Narada. I'm pretty sure that it would need to be at least 50 miles long or so to properly get down into breathable atmosphere from orbit, probably much longer than that. I guess I'm just not buying it. I sure hope the guys making the technical manual are just as thorough as we have been on nailing down the proper size for everything in this film.

It is rather obvious that the makers of this movie concentrated much more on story and character(which turned out awesome btw) than technical considerations. It's pretty well known that JJ didn't really want to be handicapped by all the canon of star trek. I can picture JJ when asked how big the Enterprise is in any particular shot saying, "It's friggin Huge!...make it bigger!". We are trying to put concrete numbers with what we saw on screen like we have always done in the past as Star Trek fans, but we fail to realize that Star Trek has changed. It's obvious that the new flagbearers for the franchise care much less about such issues. I think they wanted us to view it as entertainment and not get caught in the details. I know back when I first saw Star Wars I didn't think wow it looks like that Star Destroyer has a crew compliment of 2000 people and is approximately 3425.234 feet long. I thought, "WOW! COOL MOM!!". It will be interesting to see how the makers of the Technical manual will approach things.

 

[Shaw]

You are imbuing technology with the omnipotence property more accuratly assigned to magic. No amount of "handwavium" tech can change basic biological facts: people need X amount of oxygen, X amount of water, X amount of food, etc.

Tech may make it easier to store, transport, deliver, and recycle, but it can't replace the need to have initial stocks to start the process PLUS a suitable safety reserve.

Your reaction is predictably similar to that of someone from the 1870s, based on the same type of assumptions.

Lets just talk about fuel... again, for today's submarines in the eyes of someone from the 1870s. To them you would need some amount of coal or oil to power the sub's engines, plus you'd need air for the process to work. To them it would be magic to replace all that with a few pounds of metal that can generate all the power needed for years.

Really, there is no argument... you're far too practical and as such science fiction is the wrong genera for you.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke​

 

[Silversmok3]

And you know what a Los Angeles class sub still needs today?Water and air for the crew,plus food stores.

But in space matter are much more serious.Even on short,trans-system hops a malfunction in the warp drive will strand you.As someone who's experienced a car breakdown and needed to wait for a tow,it sucks.And I could get out for fresh air.
If the E fails a nacelle the crew is stuck waiting for rescue-and midway on a 5 year mission,suffering an engine failure will suck hardcore given Starfleet will not be able to mount a rescue.Now all of a sudden those months of extra stores come in handy,eh?

 

[Shaw]

And you know what a Los Angeles class sub still needs today?Water and air for the crew,plus food stores.

How much air would a submarine made before the end of WWII need to stay submerged for 3 to 6 months? Compare that to a Los Angeles class sub?

But maybe you aren't that aware of the history of submarine technology... in which case these types of comparisons are going to be wasted on you.

But in space matter are much more serious.Even on short,trans-system hops a malfunction in the warp drive will strand you.As someone who's experienced a car breakdown and needed to wait for a tow,it sucks.And I could get out for fresh air.
If the E fails a nacelle the crew is stuck waiting for rescue-and midway on a 5 year mission,suffering an engine failure will suck hardcore given Starfleet will not be able to mount a rescue.Now all of a sudden those months of extra stores come in handy,eh?

I'm guessing you didn't watch the original series.

Spock fried the main engines and stranded the Enterprise for a few months in The Paradise Syndrome. The rest of the crew went about their daily duties while waiting for a tow back to a starbase.

It sorta helps if you pick a scenario that didn't actually happen in an episode.

 

[dougkeenan]

The more I look at it, the less I really think those shuttles were 30 feet long. I watched the movie the other night, and those shuttles look considerably bigger than 30 feet.

"30 feet" may be a conversational approximation. But I agree, it does look longer than 30.00 ft.

 

[EJD1984]

The more I look at it, the less I really think those shuttles were 30 feet long. I watched the movie the other night, and those shuttles look considerably bigger than 30 feet.

"30 feet" may be a conversational approximation. But I agree, it does look longer than 30.00 ft.

This is staring to sound like (and confirming) scaling inconsistencies within the movie. As if people on the ILM team were working to different modeling scales, depending on their specific task - and not really communicating with each other. And that's why we're still getting conflicting numbers from different articles that don't seem to match, and what we're seeing on screen.

At this rate I'm just temped to say all the numbers are bogus, and I'll just make my own up.

 

[SonicRanger]

The more I look at it, the less I really think those shuttles were 30 feet long. I watched the movie the other night, and those shuttles look considerably bigger than 30 feet.

"30 feet" may be a conversational approximation. But I agree, it does look longer than 30.00 ft.

This is staring to sound like (and confirming) scaling inconsistencies within the movie. As if people on the ILM team were working to different modeling scales, depending on their specific task - and not really communicating with each other. And that's why we're still getting conflicting numbers that don't seem to match what we're seeing on screen.

Or they simply don't remember, off the tops of their heads, to the precision that geeks want, the sizes of virtual models that were built, probably by someone else, a year or two ago, especially when their job was to make the shots look great, not perfectly to scale.

 

[Q2UnME]

Just a thought, but a poster over in the TrekArt form won one of the models produced by Paramount as a bit of advertising just prior to the movies release. I believe the poster is using the handle audio (aka Matt). The model was constructed using diagrams (etc.) directly from the ILM meshes. Since the model is of sufficient size (~34" long) and is said to be in exacting detail to the ILM meshes, perhaps the poster would be willing to get some key dimensions from the model to aide in the discussion. Perhaps a PM to this person requesting key dimensions (down to the nearest mm) would be benificial. Yes? No?

Just a thought. Carry on..

Q2UnME

PS: Discussion thread can be found here : http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=95728

 

[jdp13]

This question may have already been resolved, and it may be old news, but here is from ILM and Digital Domain:

http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/09/new-details-on-star-trek-vfx-ship-sizes-revealed/

 

[Mangledduk]

This question may have already been resolved, and it may be old news, but here is from ILM and Digital Domain:

http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/09/new-details-on-star-trek-vfx-ship-sizes-revealed/

This is the link the the exact article we have been talking about

 

[darkwing_duck1]

You are imbuing technology with the omnipotence property more accuratly assigned to magic. No amount of "handwavium" tech can change basic biological facts: people need X amount of oxygen, X amount of water, X amount of food, etc.

Tech may make it easier to store, transport, deliver, and recycle, but it can't replace the need to have initial stocks to start the process PLUS a suitable safety reserve.

Your reaction is predictably similar to that of someone from the 1870s, based on the same type of assumptions.

Lets just talk about fuel... again, for today's submarines in the eyes of someone from the 1870s. To them you would need some amount of coal or oil to power the sub's engines, plus you'd need air for the process to work. To them it would be magic to replace all that with a few pounds of metal that can generate all the power needed for years.

Really, there is no argument... you're far too practical and as such science fiction is the wrong genera for you.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke​

But it is still technology, and still abides by the rules of physics and reality.

Even in the Trek universe, you cannot make something from nothing. You have to have SOME substance to start with.

Fusion and M/AM reactors are NOT like current fission reactors that simply bring large amounts of radioactive material together to heat up to heat water to run turbines.

Fusion and M/AM reactors actually use reactants that are consumed during energy production. Those reactants MUST be replaced. Interstellar matter is of such low density (a few atoms per sq lightyear at best), that it is insufficient for refueling purposes. The writers of the TNG tech manual ADMITTED as much, stating the ramscoops were merely gathering atoms to EXTEND the supply of fuel, not replace it.

Then there's the issue of charge "flipping" matter to create anti-matter. There is a net LOSS of energy involved in that process.

All of which ignores one very simple, basic fact. What happens when your Handwavium, INC tech goes on the fritz? If you are depending on it minute to minute to generate all the power and consumables you need, you are very quickly going to be suffocating/starving/freezing in the dark...