How big was the Enterprise?

[BK613]

Understood, but can we expect the fictional and futuristic Starfleet of the UFP to operate in the same way as 20th century Navies?

I'm sure there would be plenty of differences but overall, I would expect them to be better than us at doing it.
It just makes too much sense to me that the people that built the Excelsior moved on to building the second one. I don't see Starfleet dispersing that experience and expertise only to have to relearn it all years later.

 

[Tomalak]

Now I have a question. If the Enterprise is launched in 2245 and Discovery is a "newer ship" in the mid-2250's, how is the ship's registry NCC-1031 while the older Enterprise is NCC-1701? Anyone got any ideas? I always took the registry numbers to be production numbers. Excelsior NCC-2000 would be Starfleet's 2,000th starship for example.

Additionally, it's hard to gauge Discovery's size, because it's so flat, wide, long. Regarding internal volume, which is the bigger ship, Discovery or Enterprise?

Registries are not exclusively chronological. There are plenty of outliers which don’t fit the pattern, including the USS Constellation NCC-1017, and background chatter in TMP referening “Dreadnought Entente NCC-2120”, a good decade prior to the NX-2000.

Both Discovery and Excelsior were experimental prototypes of new drive systems, and were likely in development for years before they were launched. Perhaps they received placeholder registries that were applied to the ships when they were finally commissioned and launched?

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Registries are not exclusively chronological. There are plenty of outliers which don’t fit the pattern, including the USS Constellation NCC-1017, and background chatter in TMP referening “Dreadnought Entente NCC-2120”, a good decade prior to the NX-2000.

In the case of the Constellation, wasn't that just an Enterprise model with Constellation slapped on it and 1701 rearranged? In the case of TMP, the Excelsior NX-2000 wasn't a thing yet.

Both Discovery and Excelsior were experimental prototypes of new drive systems, and were likely in development for years before they were launched. Perhaps they received placeholder registries that were applied to the ships when they were finally commissioned and launched?

Maybe, but wouldn't that mean the ship is over 10 years old, contradicting the show suggesting it's a new ship?

 

[HotRod]

Not quite correct, DSC ironically canonised the length of 289 m by giving legible dimensions of the nacelles.

That's an admitted mistake, along with the wrong version of the ship showing up on screens. It's just an oops. They happen.

 

[Tomalak]

In the case of the Constellation, wasn't that just an Enterprise model with Constellation slapped on it and 1701 rearranged? In the case of TMP, the Excelsior NX-2000 wasn't a thing yet.

Yes, that's the real world reason, but it's an obvious issue in-universe if you think registries are chronological.

Maybe, but wouldn't that mean the ship is over 10 years old, contradicting the show suggesting it's a new ship?

The ship might be newly commissioned and launched, having been in development for years.

This is not contradictory, it depends what you mean by "new".

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Yes, that's the real world reason, but it's an obvious issue in-universe if you think registries are chronological.

The ship might be newly commissioned and launched, having been in development for years.

This is not contradictory, it depends what you mean by "new".

I look at it through both real-world and in-universe lenses, not just one or the other.
It shouldn't take over a decade to build a ship, and if it did, wouldn't they wait until it's finished and "then" assign a name and number? In the context of Discovery, when I say new, I mean new as in newer than the 10-year-old Enterprise.

 

[Tomalak]

I look at it through both real-world and in-universe lenses, not just one or the other.
It shouldn't take over a decade to build a ship, and if it did, wouldn't they wait until it's finished and "then" assign a name and number? In the context of Discovery, when I say new, I mean new as in newer than the 10-year-old Enterprise.

Real world, it's because Bryan Fuller liked Halloween.

In-universe, who knows? Personally I think it might make sense to give the hull a registry number during construction, and then a name when it's commissioned.

In the real world, the fifth Gerald Ford-class carrier is scheduled for construction and has been designated the number CVN-82 but doesn't have a name yet.

Those carriers are also taking about seven or eight years from being laid down to commissioning, so a decade to develop a cutting edge starship with a breakthrough drive system doesn't seem crazy.

The TNG Technical Manual says the Enterprise-D was laid down in 2350, launched in 2358 and commissioned in 2363.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Real world, it's because Bryan Fuller liked Halloween.

In-universe, who knows? Personally I think it might make sense to give the hull a registry number during construction, and then a name when it's commissioned.

In the real world, the fifth Gerald Ford-class carrier is scheduled for construction and has been designated the number CVN-82 but doesn't have a name yet.

If the registry is production number, it places Discovery as being over 10 years old, older than the Enterprise, but 1031 to 1701, much older than 10 years, maybe 15, 20, maybe older. I feel like the best we'll get is the producer just wasn't interested in the registry number making sense. I miss the 90's when the producers cared about this stuff.

 

[Tomalak]

If the registry is production number, it places Discovery as being over 10 years old, older than the Enterprise, but 1031 to 1701, much older than 10 years, maybe 15, 20, maybe older.

I edited my post to add a bit more, but that doesn't mean it's "older". It depends what you mean.

The point is that we saw Discovery under construction in a flashback episode and she was said to be brand new. That doesn't mean she didn't take years to develop and construct.

I feel like the best we'll get is the producer just wasn't interested in the registry number making sense. I miss the 90's when the producers cared about this stuff.

Don't think like that, the 90s were full of continuity errors too. Writing always comes first, as it should.

 

[blssdwlf]

Not quite correct, DSC ironically canonised the length of 289 m by giving legible dimensions of the nacelles.

ep. "Brother"

The nacelles of the larger SNW version are more like 230 m long.
SNW clearly established 442 m which also matches Disco's CGI model.

Watch: Sonequa Martin-Green Discusses ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Season Two – See A Tease Of The Enterprise

CBS continues to tease the second season in a new video.

trekmovie.com

Actually @HotRod is quite correct. The TOS Enterprise's length is not cemented in canon.

DSC canonized a ship that does not look like the TOS Enterprise or the actual Enterprise hovering in front of Discovery in "Brother" with a nacelle length of 153.6m which if you measure what is on the computer display comes out to around an overall length of 279m. The computer diagram shows a ship that has a wider stance than the TOS Enterprise and also a different nacelle pylon configuration compared to the Enterprise hovering in front of Discovery. They are different ships.

The relatively low overall density is noteworthy as well. The smaller Intrepid class is almost 3.7 times as massive (700,000 vs.190,000 tons).

This "Discovery Straight Pylon Variant" of the Enterprise has a Gross Tonnage of 190,000 Metric Tons (internal volume) which differs from from the Gross Weight of 190,000 Metric Tons (weight of load) from TMOST. Voyager is described as "700,000 Metric Tons" but the dialogue does not say regarding what aspect of the ship. And lastly we have Scotty's "almost a million gross tons of vessel" description from "Mudd's Women". None of these measurements are comparable.

 

[fireproof78]

I look at it through both real-world and in-universe lenses, not just one or the other.
It shouldn't take over a decade to build a ship, and if it did, wouldn't they wait until it's finished and "then" assign a name and number? In the context of Discovery, when I say new, I mean new as in newer than the 10-year-old Enterprise.

Older frame repurposed. New like a Refit Enterprise new.

 

[Spacedout]

Depends. The original size was probably pretty small, just big enough to hang by a string, but with modern technology, might only be as big as a few megabytes or however many bytes the computer generated image takes up.

 

[Daedalus]

That's an admitted mistake, along with the wrong version of the ship showing up on screens. It's just an oops. They happen.

Smaller dimensions happened again for the Cayuga and the Peregrine, so im not too sure it's always a mistake. Its just a thing you're not supposed to see taken from a Google search, i'd imagine.

(We have talked about those ships before so I will spare everyone the picture spam)

 

[HotRod]

Smaller dimensions happened again for the Cayuga and the Peregrine, so im not too sure it's always a mistake. Its just a thing you're not supposed to see taken from a Google search, i'd imagine.

(We have talked about those ships before so I will spare everyone the picture spam)

Those were also admitted mistake by Timothy Pool. He admitted the error on Twitter when he released the artwork online with the corrected numbers.

Not everyone is as dyed in the wool as we all are. Art department needed a number and probably used the first number they saw online.

 

[Daedalus]

Those were also admitted mistake by Timothy Pool. He admitted the error on Twitter when he released the artwork online with the corrected numbers.

Not everyone is as dyed in the wool as we all are. Art department needed a number and probably used the first number they saw online.

He never admitted a mistake, just adjusted the old graphic for fans to save.

The original remains in the episode.

 

[HotRod]

He never admitted a mistake, just adjusted the old graphic for fans to save.

The original remains in the episode.

I recall him saying it was a mistake. Regardless, it WAS a mistake.

 

[Daedalus]

Actually, since it's quite relevant to the thread and maybe useful for other posters, it's worth showing them again.

Mistakes or not, they appear on screen, so dismiss at leisure if background graphics arent sufficient. As with most canon evidence for the 442m length and the 289m length, none of it is ever seen with 100% clarity, but are still valid discussion points.

USS Cayuga with "TOS" dimensions, which would be odd for such a squat ship and its slanted nacelle struts.

USS Peregrine.

You'll note with the Peregrine that it contains a mix of dimensions for a larger and a smaller craft. Taken as gospel, this would be one ugly and clunky ship.

I DARE someone to try and draw it with those numbers!!

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Actually, since it's quite relevant to the thread and maybe useful for other posters, it's worth showing them again.

Mistakes or not, they appear on screen, so dismiss at leisure if background graphics arent sufficient. As with most canon evidence for the 442m length and the 289m length, none of it is ever seen with 100% clarity, but are still valid discussion points.

USS Cayuga with "TOS" dimensions, which would be odd for such a squat ship and its slanted nacelle struts.

USS Peregrine.

You'll note with the Peregrine that it contains a mix of dimensions for a larger and a smaller craft. Taken as gospel, this would be one ugly and clunky ship.

I DARE someone to try and draw it with those numbers!!

What episode is the USS Peregrine from?

 

[Daedalus]

What episode is the USS Peregrine from?

All Those Who Wander, its an SNW episode, so I hope I didn't spoil anything for you.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

All Those Who Wander, its an SNW episode, so I hope I didn't spoil anything for you.

Starships are never spoilers, just incentives to watch sooner than later.