My god, the new Enterprise must be HUGE
- Thread starter darkwing_duck1
- Start date
"I don't want to drive...65!"
Maybe we see the Enterprise crashland on Earth.
Oh wait...
Oh...My...God!!!!
The Ship is Too Big!!!! tm
What is this Transformers!!?? tm
Maybe we see the Enterprise crashland on Earth.
Oh wait...
Oh...My...God!!!!
The Ship is Too Big!!!! tmWhat is this Transformers!!?? tm
Well if they are going for the earlier design of the ship, then it's possible it got scaled down as TOS era came about.
What I find intriguing and a bit ... strange is that humans are welding the plates on their own on Earth no less.
For a supposed warp capable species, you would think they would have automated technology in the 23rd century that would speed up construction a lot and people would not be doing those kinds of jobs (just doesn't fit with the supposed 'centuries ahead tech society'
Then again, this IS the Enterprise ... so it's possible that the writers could explain it that humanity decided to put in manual work into construction of this ship.
Oh don't get me wrong, I will enjoy the movie one way or the other, but in Trek terms it doesn't make sense to waste time constructing a starship with manual labor when you should have the technology and almost a century of space exploration behind you that would get the job done at least 10x as fast.
No wonder it takes so long for SF to construct ships.
They aren't using technology or machines to aid them.
What I find intriguing and a bit ... strange is that humans are welding the plates on their own on Earth no less.
For a supposed warp capable species, you would think they would have automated technology in the 23rd century that would speed up construction a lot and people would not be doing those kinds of jobs (just doesn't fit with the supposed 'centuries ahead tech society'
Then again, this IS the Enterprise ... so it's possible that the writers could explain it that humanity decided to put in manual work into construction of this ship.
Oh don't get me wrong, I will enjoy the movie one way or the other, but in Trek terms it doesn't make sense to waste time constructing a starship with manual labor when you should have the technology and almost a century of space exploration behind you that would get the job done at least 10x as fast.
No wonder it takes so long for SF to construct ships.
They aren't using technology or machines to aid them.
Maybe those are androids.
That said, I think most of us are in the camp that this teaser is not to be taken literally. It looks very much like 1960s (not even 2000s where most precision welding is robot-done) technology being used to build the ship. Again, it's the idea of the teaser as a metaphor for the beginning of space exploration.
As for the size of the ship, YES, the saucer IS thicker. The TOS saucer was about 20 to 22 feet thick at the rim. This is definitely thicker than that. By my estimate, probably twice as thick. But it's wrong to extrapolate a scale from that and say the rest of the ship must be much larger than TOS Entperprise.
For some more perspective, the intercoolers in another picture in the teaser look to be about 18 feet tall on the slant. The vertical height of the intercoolers on TOS Enterprise was about 12 feet (don't know the height of the slant).
One thing to figure into the issue of people welding the ship together is that the Enterprise is either the first or second ship of the class depending what history you follow. Consider that this ship is a prototype and the have not finished programming all the automation to build by machine.
Soar Dude
Interesting that the dimensions deduced for this Enterprise are approximately what you would get if you used meters instead of feet in the original.
I don't know... those two guys are looking pretty big for being to scale.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Only if that man is a midget (6' ~= 1.9m [rounded to 2m], 1m would be only about 3.5' tall) The man is standing, rather than kneeling, as I'd originally thought), leaning slightly forward with one foot up and forward on something for balance. If you want to take off 1/3 for my original assumption that he was down on one knee, go ahead; it still gives us a conne only about 20m shorter than the Ent-D.
Well, the scaling is based on the distance between hull plates... when scaled together, that is what you get.
As the shot of the guys has one of them walking, we can get a stride length, and assuming he is average height (1.77 meters), we can figure out what one meter is in these shots.
From what I can tell, the hull thickness at the edge is 8 meters.
If anyone can come up with a better way to determine the scaling, I'm open to suggestions.
As the shot of the guys has one of them walking, we can get a stride length, and assuming he is average height (1.77 meters), we can figure out what one meter is in these shots.
From what I can tell, the hull thickness at the edge is 8 meters.
If anyone can come up with a better way to determine the scaling, I'm open to suggestions.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Before everybody wears out their protractors, maybe it is useful to keep in mind something Bill George, one of the main art director guys at ILM (now an vfx supervisor, but in the past a contributor to TMP, SFS, TVH, TUC, GEN & FC, though so far as I know he isn't working on this trek) said about continuity. (I think it was when I asked him about a particular issue as far as visible shields appearing briefly in TMP but not appearing in TUC):
"we have a saying - continuity is for wusses."
(it may have been 'wussies' -- I honestly don't recall.)
They'll exaggerate for effect if that is what the director calls for or if they think a shot needs it. All you have to do is look at how the Bird of Prey changes size when next to the Merchantman ship in SFS and the whaling ship in TVH, as opposed to when it is in the proximity of the refit. They resize for effect, not for slavish adherence to what is established.
Not saying it is right; just that it has been part of their approach in the past.
EDIT ADDON: this most recent image looks a lot sharper, is somebody tweaking it or is this another more recent version of the trailer?
"we have a saying - continuity is for wusses."
(it may have been 'wussies' -- I honestly don't recall.)
They'll exaggerate for effect if that is what the director calls for or if they think a shot needs it. All you have to do is look at how the Bird of Prey changes size when next to the Merchantman ship in SFS and the whaling ship in TVH, as opposed to when it is in the proximity of the refit. They resize for effect, not for slavish adherence to what is established.
Not saying it is right; just that it has been part of their approach in the past.
EDIT ADDON: this most recent image looks a lot sharper, is somebody tweaking it or is this another more recent version of the trailer?
I'm using the HD version of the teaser for measurements and images.
As far as any of this being a waste of time or anything like that... math is fun all the time! This is an interesting puzzle, but I have already stated that I doubt any of this has any baring on the film itself. It's just for fun.
Okay, I'm not pretending that this is precise or that it proves anything, but...I just thought I'd get into the game and take a stab at it:
It's based on trying to scale a circle to the visible features of the image, and then assuming a shoulder width of twenty inches for the guy on the right of the picture (that's measured across, not the circumference of his torso at the shoulders). Nineteen to twenty inches is conservative, I think, for a man. It's certainly not going to throw you off by a factor of more than five or ten percent one way or the other.
And them's the results. All subject to every kind of error you can cogitate.
It's based on trying to scale a circle to the visible features of the image, and then assuming a shoulder width of twenty inches for the guy on the right of the picture (that's measured across, not the circumference of his torso at the shoulders). Nineteen to twenty inches is conservative, I think, for a man. It's certainly not going to throw you off by a factor of more than five or ten percent one way or the other.
And them's the results. All subject to every kind of error you can cogitate.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Ok, I went back, did an enlargement of the WHOLE section (so as not to change the scale of the stick from the original) and copied the stick and moved it up to the figure you indicated with these results:
A note about #2: if he IS waist/chest up, he's standing on SOMETHING...but there IS a structure indicated by bounce light right about the level his feet should be (called out with the blue line). Either way, the 2m stick I'm using holds up, I think.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
RAMA, the TMP saucer at the rim is 2 decks, minimum (per the Rec Room scene). I can show you based on structures visible IN the hi res photo AT LEAST 3 decks in this saucer, one of them being TALL (at least 2x standard) from the look of it, if you want to go that route.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
On what basis are you calling two decks? There are structures for AT LEAST 3 visible (counting the topmost 'service' deck), there are the same pipings on the bottom edge, so that's 2 MORE meters, and one of the floor structures is particularly thick (you can see the bracings), call it one, so if I accept 2 3m decks as you suggest plus service decks (x2= 6m plus another 1m for the "thick area" thats 16m right there, not 12.