It isn't. Its about the same size as the original.
Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach: The New Enterprise
- Thread starter Lowdarzz
- Start date
- Status
It looks like a competition for seeing how many sci-fi cliches you can get into one scene!
Not to mention SF cliche ACTORS. That's Robert Picardo in the middle. 
Mark
Mark
Actrually, we don't know EITHER of these things.
We've seen indications in the trailer that the ship is a lot larger... mainly, as far as I'm concerned, driven by the tiny size of the people seen on what is now, quite clearly, the top of a nacelle.
But the trailer could still turn out to be wrong in this regard. If it's not, however... yeah, this is one big honkin' ship. And yes, about the same size as the 1701-D.
Check out the man walking along the gantry that enters the ventral saucer from starbaord side, aft.
the ONLY reason NASA didn't build the ISS on the ground is that we lack the capability to lift such a large structure into orbit. building crap in space sucks, and is never your first option. workers are packed into spacesuits with -10 Dex penalties, zero-g looks awesome but is just a pain in the ass to move in, tool bags JUST FLOAT AWAY, etc.
skylab? totally built on the ground.
Not true, Largo. Skylab was a single module, so that's not totally relevant here... but the ISS is a totally different beast.
The ISS consists of a series of separate modules which are "barely" clamped together. Their interconnections could not survive the stresses of gravity (or even of anything more than the most minor of course-correction accelerations).
And the utility towers (both on the Russian half and the US half)... as well as the entire main truss... would, if assembled in a gravity situation, "spring back" into an out-of-alignment condition if they were assembled on earth and then lifted into space. The whole thing would be WRONG if it were assembled in gravity and then deployed into microgravity. The truss, the various universal docking modules... everything... will only work... will only align properly and assemble properly... if there is no net force applied.
Neither the ISS nor Skylab are 23rd century warp-driven starships.
the ISS was designed as a completely different beast, because it had to be to meet the mission specs. the mission was a big space station, for lots of science. fine, because we can't build a monolithic structure on the ground and lift it to orbit, we HAVE to build in orbit. once you're forced into it, then you do the sticks + modules thing, because THAT is now your best option. and the module size is dictated by being the biggest thing we can lift anymore, thanks to NASA's devotion to the STS.
if it could all be built on the ground and lifted into orbit, you better believe that's how we'd do it.
The cap is from "Explorers", a 1985 movie about a trio of kids whose dreams instruct them to create a spaceship out of junk. The cap is of a drive-in B-movie the boys pass in front of, while a know-it-all jock tells his girlfriend the wired-up spaceship models are in fact a travelling matte. :P
The kicker is that Picardo, who plays Starkiller (the guy in the movie) shows up as the alien guy Wak, and also Wak's father later on...
Mark
The kicker is that Picardo, who plays Starkiller (the guy in the movie) shows up as the alien guy Wak, and also Wak's father later on...
Mark
Ok, I have two more images I think help make a point or two:
First, I think The neck wrinkle is somewhat strange. I have one on one of my TNG fan-designs, but it seems like overkill here. It's like they took the ENT-D neck and flipped it upside down so the wide part is now on the bottom.
ETA: Is it just me, or does it look like there are three decks in the saucer rim? Granted, this is just my guesswork diagram, but with the...sag going on in the new version, I think you could cram another deck in there on the bottom.
Even if the ship isn't 'scaled up' per se, the saucer is still huge compared to the original.
The nacelles are really pushed back, I guess to stay away from the bigger saucer.
The Nacelles are definitely shorter and fatter, while the secondary hull seems longer. I made this drawing by pretty much building the new ship on top of a pic of the old, and I have a funny feeling this is exactly what Mr. Church did too. Personally, I would've probably just bit the bullet and moved the primary hull, it's not like the ship could possibly be the same one from TOS.
First, I think The neck wrinkle is somewhat strange. I have one on one of my TNG fan-designs, but it seems like overkill here. It's like they took the ENT-D neck and flipped it upside down so the wide part is now on the bottom.
ETA: Is it just me, or does it look like there are three decks in the saucer rim? Granted, this is just my guesswork diagram, but with the...sag going on in the new version, I think you could cram another deck in there on the bottom.
Even if the ship isn't 'scaled up' per se, the saucer is still huge compared to the original.
The nacelles are really pushed back, I guess to stay away from the bigger saucer.
The Nacelles are definitely shorter and fatter, while the secondary hull seems longer. I made this drawing by pretty much building the new ship on top of a pic of the old, and I have a funny feeling this is exactly what Mr. Church did too. Personally, I would've probably just bit the bullet and moved the primary hull, it's not like the ship could possibly be the same one from TOS.
I think this time you've got it... the primary hull is the correct size (relative to the rest of the ship) now... and the nacelles are the correct length... it all looks "right" to me now. Well, as right as an "alternate reality version" ever could, I mean...Ok, I have two more images I think help make a point or two:
First, I think The neck wrinkle is somewhat strange. I have one on one of my TNG fan-designs, but it seems like overkill here. It's like they took the ENT-D neck and flipped it upside down so the wide part is now on the bottom.
ETA: Is it just me, or does it look like there are three decks in the saucer rim? Granted, this is just my guesswork diagram, but with the...sag going on in the new version, I think you could cram another deck in there on the bottom.
Even if the ship isn't 'scaled up' per se, the saucer is still huge compared to the original.
The nacelles are really pushed back, I guess to stay away from the bigger saucer.
The Nacelles are definitely shorter and fatter, while the secondary hull seems longer. I made this drawing by pretty much building the new ship on top of a pic of the old, and I have a funny feeling this is exactly what Mr. Church did too. Personally, I would've probably just bit the bullet and moved the primary hull, it's not like the ship could possibly be the same one from TOS.
Yeah, pratice makes perfect.
Mr Splotch found the bridge lamps!
This is too rich:
http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2320797&postcount=241
Mr Splotch found the bridge lamps!
This is too rich:http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2320797&postcount=241
For a civilization with the gravity and inertia control that Star Trek had, building a starship on the ground strikes me as a rather trivial endeavor. I mean look at the size of those archologies on the horizon. Those must be tens of kilometers high and kilometers wide.
And it is not inconceivable that the ship itself is encased in a variable gravity field while being produced. It would be much easier to assemble it in a half-G or even quarter-G environment, I imagine.
And it is not inconceivable that the ship itself is encased in a variable gravity field while being produced. It would be much easier to assemble it in a half-G or even quarter-G environment, I imagine.
Building the ship on the ground is not Star Trek. That's Robotech.
Oh come on, it's such an inessential thing.
- Status
