Yes, I agree. 350m-400m is bigger than 290m or 305m. It's just not some ridiculous figure like 750m.
Starship Size Argument™ thread
- Thread starter WarpFactorZ
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I agree. 350m-400m is bigger than 290m or 305m. It's just not some ridiculous figure like 750m.
The Enterprise is fucking huge! You'll see it in the movie.
725 actually but yes, she big.
Why shouldn't it? Why and how to they pick sizes and shapes for ships in Trek's world? The Enterprise is a goofy shape.
How do you explain or justify the Nova (small), Intrepid (medium) and Sovereign (large) classes, all versions of the same basic shape?
You repeatedly said 350m for the new Enterprise's overall length. I gave you a little more, 366m, the stated concept design size. Now you're telling me it's not enough to fit?Here are some more:
I never said the hanger bay was 18m across. I said it was at least 26m from my measurements (at the bay doors -- it gets wider as you go in). Why do you keep pushing an incorrect figure? And furthermore, only the biggest shuttles are 12m long. The rest are shorter.
Basic perspective, as taught in high school art. I even drew a comparison.This makes no sense. Why would the wall be visible in the adjacent window? It's clearly another room or hallway.
There would be room enough. As I said before, we see the deck heights in the corridor junction.
It WAS called a Dreadnaught in the film.
The hatch Kirk and Harrison 'fly' into the Vengeance was on deck 13, which was in the centre of the engineering section.
Unless that ship has very limited decks (IE big spaces in between) then the Vengeance is the size of Voyager...
Unless that ship has very limited decks (IE big spaces in between) then the Vengeance is the size of Voyager...
Okay?
The decks do seem to be excessively tall.
that deck is especially massive... i'm remembering Scotty running across it and still not seeing the top of it
Yeah, the star drive seemed to be devoted to automation and machinary, we see them running through server farms where there should be crew stations, probably why the ship can operate on such a tiny crew.
So it looks like the decks down there are huge in order to carry...something. Weapons, troops, other unpleasant things to deploy against a planetary population.
So it looks like the decks down there are huge in order to carry...something. Weapons, troops, other unpleasant things to deploy against a planetary population.
Here are the figures I cited at the beginning of this thread:
- Primary hull diameter = 238 m
- Secondary hull length = 189 m
- Total length (excluding nacelles) = 343 m
- Height = 97.5 m
- Max. width of secondary hull = 45 m
- Max. height of secondary hull = 39 m (measured from base of neck)
- Width of hanger deck (at doors) = 26 m
- height of hanger doors = 8.5 m
- Bridge viewscreen / window = 8.5 m
- Round porthole window diameter = 0.6m
- Diameter of "bridge" dome = 9 m
- Bridge diameter = 18m (assuming it fills the space between the two "side" windows)
Based on the measurements I made of the diagrams you provided links for, that's what it was, assuming the hatches were 2.5m in diameter. Make them an unusual 3m, and you have a hanger deck of width 32m, and a bow-to-stern length of 410m. Still nowhere near near 725m.
Again, your drawings show nothing except a biased "guess" of where the wall ends to suit your argument. I think you're mistaken that they actually modeled the inside of the rooms to match what you see outside. More likely, they simply superimposed an image of rooms through the window.
I see hallways that are about 10ft tall according to the interior shots, consistent with a typical building. What are you referencing?
Look, I'm really not against it being "slightly" bigger than the original size. But over 700m? That's just not sensible, and is simply BIG for the sake of being "BIG!!!!"
Didn't you know that's not allowed here at the TrekBBS!
that deck is especially massive... i'm remembering Scotty running across it and still not seeing the top of it
This. And perhaps the decks on the Vengeance are divided into various levels.
Well, wouldn't that make them separate decks?
Only if each and every deck had exactly the same height, with no spaces extending over multiple levels.
See it like that: Deck 13 (Engineering/Hangar-deck), Level 4.
Didn't you know that's not allowed here at the TrekBBS!
Yes. I'm prepared to be banned.
Yep, that's mine.
Wow, I suppose I need to go back and finish that, right? Sorry, life kind of went screwy at the end of 2009.I just wanted to pop in on this and say that my rendering is completely based on my own imagination, and this same debate that was taking place back in the summer of 2009. I had bigger (ha) plans for this image, but I've never gotten any further with it. Beyond the plan, the big thing for me was to a) show that it was conceivable that the ship was as big as they were saying it was, and b) to find a place for what all we had seen in the 2009 film.
After seeing the movie last night, I've got a whole bunch of new locations to figure out.
^ Unfinished or not, you did a fantastic job. Extremely well detailed. Thanks. 
What doesn't make sense about it? Starfleet has built much bigger things, so that's not an issue. The ship being twice the size of the Enterprise doesn't make a whole lot of difference in space. What specifically is your objection to the size of the Vengeance, and to the Enterprise being larger in an alternate universe?
What doesn't make sense about it? Starfleet has built much bigger things, so that's not an issue. The ship being twice the size of the Enterprise doesn't make a whole lot of difference in space. What specifically is your objection to the size of the Vengeance, and to the Enterprise being larger in an alternate universe?
What's ridiculous about it? At 750 meters, Kirks Enterprise is has EXACTLY the same dimensions as the Enterprise-C; the singular difference between them is actually the length of the nacelles beyond the engineering hull.
Is there something I don't know about the Enterprise-C that makes it "ridiculously" large?
- Status
Similar threads
