Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)
- Thread starter Strat
- Start date
- Status
I prefer the 366, too. I mean, with the refit we already had a rec deck in TMP that didn't fit perfectly, and in TUC a bridge that shouldn't have really fit inside the dome with the turbos to the side (and, arguably, never "really" fit the whole time.)
I'd have been fine fudging the appearance of the shuttlebay in XI for consistency's sake.
But I can still live with a double-sized ship.
I'd have been fine fudging the appearance of the shuttlebay in XI for consistency's sake.
But I can still live with a double-sized ship.
Yep, it's a HUGE ship. But, it may not actually be big enough for the shuttle bay to work.
Nah it still works, those fighters are much longer and wider than the shuttles on that movie...Anyways, the size its scaled at is 725 meters, (one of the quoted sizes) if its any bigger it just exaggerates the ridiculousness of it imho.
Those fighters i believe are about 50 to 60 feet long if I remember correctly. I think the more accurate size comparison to the shuttles would be the cabin area of the Seahawk helicopters on the deck.
F-18 dimensions:
- Length: 56 ft (17.1 m)
- Wingspan: 40 ft (12.3 m)
- Height: 15 ft 4 in (4.7 m)
- Length: 64 ft 8 in (19.75 m)
- Rotor diameter: 53 ft 8 in (16.35 m)
- Height: 17 ft 2 in (5.2 m)
- Disc area: 2,262 ft² (210 m²)
Last edited:
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/index-bp.html I got them here. They aren't 100 percent accurate, but they are right as far as proportions go from what I can tell
Thanks, this artist did an incredible job. And WOW, are they hi-res!
You are welcome sir
Yep, it's a HUGE ship. But, it may not actually be big enough for the shuttle bay to work.
Nah it still works, those fighters are much longer and wider than the shuttles on that movie...Anyways, the size its scaled at is 725 meters, (one of the quoted sizes) if its any bigger it just exaggerates the ridiculousness of it imho.
Those fighters i believe are about 50 to 60 feet long if I remember correctly. I think the more accurate size comparison to the shuttles would be the cabin area of the Seahawk helicopters on the deck.
F-18 dimensions:
Seahawk dimensions:
- Length: 56 ft (17.1 m)
- Wingspan: 40 ft (12.3 m)
- Height: 15 ft 4 in (4.7 m)
- Length: 64 ft 8 in (19.75 m)
- Rotor diameter: 53 ft 8 in (16.35 m)
- Height: 17 ft 2 in (5.2 m)
- Disc area: 2,262 ft² (210 m²)
You (I think) are correct. Thanks.
It seems that there was a breakdown in "tech talk" in this production. Perhaps an "Enterprise Zcar" would help in the future.
If that had been the case, the official length would still be 300 meters despite visual cues to the contrary.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Top ortho with a 366 meter ship and a 725 meter ship...carrier is 333 meters
(tiny dots are actually two people)
This reminds me of a scene from Zoolander...
JJ Abrams: How can they travel through space if they can't even fit in the ship!?
What is it interstellar travel for ants? It needs to be at least...3 times this big!
ILM: He's right make it bigger
Your images aren't really making a point. They don't favor either scale; except that the smaller enterprise "feels" good to you. Well, the larger one "feels" good to me, so that's that.
Actually, when I look at it, those fighters look to have a "footprint" just a hair bigger than the big transport shuttles, so they make the case for the 700+m version even MORE persusasive.
Yep! I agree with that... In fact the 300m Enterprise almost seems to have a shuttle bay comparable to a 2-car garage,
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Yep! I agree with that... In fact the 300m Enterprise almost seems to have a shuttle bay comparable to a 2-car garage,
OK, here's that image and what I did:
1) I took ONE F-18 and copied it after zooming in so as to get the length right.
2) The F-18 is 56' long, so to get a 30' image I did the math and reduced the image to 53% size.
3 ) I then lined up 5 in a row, oriented port/starboard (as seen in the Enterprise shuttle scenes). I allowed a bit between each image for the gantry's etc (and as a margin of error).
4) I then put one row each port and starboard into the shuttlebays of each Enterprise.
No matter what else is said, the smaller of the two Enterprises is just too small. The larger of the two (725m) is the only one that fits.
Yep! I agree with that... In fact the 300m Enterprise almost seems to have a shuttle bay comparable to a 2-car garage,
OK, here's that image and what I did:
1) I took ONE F-18 and copied it after zooming in so as to get the length right.
2) The F-18 is 56' long, so to get a 30' image I did the math and reduced the image to 53% size.
3 ) I then lined up 5 in a row, oriented port/starboard (as seen in the Enterprise shuttle scenes). I allowed a bit between each image for the gantry's etc (and as a margin of error).
4) I then put one row each port and starboard into the shuttlebays of each Enterprise.
No matter what else is said, the smaller of the two Enterprises is just too small. The larger of the two (725m) is the only one that fits.
That DOES look like what we saw in the movie. Good job.
What about the bridge window? Or the shuttle flyby scene that Dennis posted about a million posts back?
What about the escape pod or the window size? Look, this has been going for 64 pages. The ship is not real. It does not exist, thus, it has not real size. Smaller size makes more sense to me, in the context of the existing canon. That is it. It is a personal preference.
OK, we currently have aircraft carriers at 333 meters. Would ANYONE outside sci-fi writers (nod to Jules Verne here) believed such a thing possible in 100 years time? So now we are arguing the merits of a space ship twice the size of current watercraft that exists in sci-fi some 200 years into the future?!
There have been several very convincing arguments that the "E" concieved in 1966 was too small to have been workable and I have to agree with that. It would seem that this "E" has been re-imagined with a little more thought (a lot less thought in some areas I'll grant) about how much space a crew would need for a voyage of 5 years. I really like what would appear to be redundant warp cores also!
All and all I like the idea of the 762m "E". It seems to "work".
There have been several very convincing arguments that the "E" concieved in 1966 was too small to have been workable and I have to agree with that. It would seem that this "E" has been re-imagined with a little more thought (a lot less thought in some areas I'll grant) about how much space a crew would need for a voyage of 5 years. I really like what would appear to be redundant warp cores also!
All and all I like the idea of the 762m "E". It seems to "work".
Top ortho with a 366 meter ship and a 725 meter ship...carrier is 333 meters
(tiny dots are actually two people)
This reminds me of a scene from Zoolander...
JJ Abrams: How can they travel through space if they can't even fit in the ship!?
What is it interstellar travel for ants? It needs to be at least...3 times this big!
ILM: He's right make it bigger
Your images aren't really making a point. They don't favor either scale; except that the smaller enterprise "feels" good to you. Well, the larger one "feels" good to me, so that's that.
Actually, when I look at it, those fighters look to have a "footprint" just a hair bigger than the big transport shuttles, so they make the case for the 700+m version even MORE persusasive.
Actually, its pretty much set in stone that the 700+m version is what we saw, along with the 366 meter version. ILM said they designed it at 366 meters and upscaled it for the shuttle bay scenes. That is precisely why I scaled it in both sizes, there really is no debate, they flat out told us that's what they did
Yep! I agree with that... In fact the 300m Enterprise almost seems to have a shuttle bay comparable to a 2-car garage,
OK, here's that image and what I did:
1) I took ONE F-18 and copied it after zooming in so as to get the length right.
2) The F-18 is 56' long, so to get a 30' image I did the math and reduced the image to 53% size.
3 ) I then lined up 5 in a row, oriented port/starboard (as seen in the Enterprise shuttle scenes). I allowed a bit between each image for the gantry's etc (and as a margin of error).
4) I then put one row each port and starboard into the shuttlebays of each Enterprise.
No matter what else is said, the smaller of the two Enterprises is just too small. The larger of the two (725m) is the only one that fits.
This is very nice what you did here, but I was showing what it was, and what it was scaled to. It's obvious that shuttle scene would not fit in the 366 meter ship.
It is interesting to compare the nuEnterprise to the aircraft carrier Enterprise, but the carrier isn't exactly the largest vessel around. Even the Queen Mary 2 is longer! Why not compare it to a supertanker like the Knock Nevis, which is 458 m? A 300-m starship was big in 1966, but not anymore. A comparison to the Knock Nevis, built in 1979, would put the nuEnterprise in a more valid context.
That's not the Enterprise that's the USS Gerald Ford which is the newest class of aircraft carrier that will be launched in I believe 2015..but sure Ill do a comparison with the Knock Nevis if I can find some blueprints..
- Status
Similar threads
