Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Since it appears most likely that there will be a new director for the next film.

Since when?

Everything we've heard leads us to believe the sequel will be run by the same guys, including Abrams as director.

Abrams as the director is not a lock.

Here's his dilemma: he says he wants to do different kinds of movies. People in the industry are still saying things about him like his being potentially "another Spielberg." Spielberg did not become the enormously influential filmmaker that he is by continually directing properties that essentially were created by other people and belonged to studios - he had his own ideas of the kinds of films he wanted to make. And Paramount is going to want the sequel to Star Trek in theaters in 2011.

So we'll see - even in exchange for a truckload of money he may simply produce.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Except that we have a considerable scale change mid production.

Irrelevant since the bridge window maintains proportion no matter how you scale the ship, which may or may not be true for the shuttlebay.

If you scale by the window or the airlock

We don't know the size of the airlock or its proportions, so this is irrelevant.

I lean towards a little over 3m myself. It sure as hell isn't the dinky little 7 man shuttle from TOS Prime. It carries at LEAST 15-20 people.

I don't think so. Actually, its interior seems like what you would get if you stretched the fuselage of a Blackhawk helicopter by another ten feet. It's a tight fit, but squeezing fifteen people into it doesn't require alot of head room (as Kirk found out the hard way).

Except that yeilds a number that doesn't fit with other evidence.

In what way? I just told you, using the bridge window alone I get about 42 decks. If the bridge window is eight feet high (making a ten foot or 3 meter deck height altogether) then you have a ship about 760 meters long. How is this inconsistent with the shuttlebay scene?

For that matter, someone needs to explain to me what part of the engine room scene is inconsistent with... well, ANYTHING. Just saying "it looks too big" doesn't cut it, there isn't a scene in the movie where the engine room spans more than a few dozen meters in any direction.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The shuttle is AT LEAST 3 metres tall newtype

Compare with a list of things that actually are 3 meters tall.

The fuselage of a UH-60 helicopter (including the engines, but not the mast or the rail rotor) is just under 3 meters tall with landing gear. My living room ceiling is 2.8 meters tall. A standard shipping container is 2.4 meters high. Two minivans stacked on top of each other would add up to about 3.2 meters high.

We know Enterprise shuttle is VERY wide. What we do not know is its height. Darkwing's assertions notwithstanding, all we have seen of its height are views of the door from afar and views of people up close, near the door. Without something that could pass for an orthographic view, the height can only be guesstimated, but since this is a SINGLE deck space craft, this gives an upper limit for height of around 3 meters. In the first place this is consistent with the bridge window and a count of 42 decks (where each shelf is two decks and about 6 to 7 meters high) and in the second place is consistent with the low ceilings of the shuttle and the fact that the floor space is thin enough that one of Enterprise' shuttles contains a HATCH through which three guys in space suits can be dropped from orbit.

As for direct evidence, the best we have is this image:
http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/trek-trailer-large-shuttle.jpg

Assuming the chick on the ladder is 1.6 meters tall, from the landing pad to the top of the nacelle would give us a height of almost exactly 3 meters. Again, consistent with a four-deck, two shelf shuttlebay with deck heights of around 3 meters, which seems perfectly consistent with the shuttlebay scene.

In any case, if you're trying to get a PRECISE estimate, the bridge window is still your best bet, since our estimates of its size are less ambiguous and its position and proportions compared to the actual ship are extremely clear.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Except that we have a considerable scale change mid production.

Irrelevant since the bridge window maintains proportion no matter how you scale the ship, which may or may not be true for the shuttlebay.

Wrong. The bridge window is a constant, based on the on set size. The windows and detailing on the model were obviously done at a point where they envisioned a smaller ship. Then along came the huge shuttles, and up went the scale. They just never bothered to adjust the details.

If you scale by the window or the airlock

We don't know the size of the airlock or its proportions, so this is irrelevant.

That's exactly what you were trying do do just before now, scale by the bridge window, isn't it?

I lean towards a little over 3m myself. It sure as hell isn't the dinky little 7 man shuttle from TOS Prime. It carries at LEAST 15-20 people.

I don't think so. Actually, its interior seems like what you would get if you stretched the fuselage of a Blackhawk helicopter by another ten feet. It's a tight fit, but squeezing fifteen people into it doesn't require alot of head room (as Kirk found out the hard way).

That shuttle is way bigger than a Blackhawk, esp side to side.

Except that yeilds a number that doesn't fit with other evidence.

In what way? I just told you, using the bridge window alone I get about 42 decks. If the bridge window is eight feet high (making a ten foot or 3 meter deck height altogether) then you have a ship about 760 meters long. How is this inconsistent with the shuttlebay scene?

Ok, I didn't connect this number with you...I though you were one of the ones arguing for a much smaller number...my apologies.

 

[miraclefan]

Don't know if THIS helps but http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm says the shuttle is 14 meters long (about 49 feet). Take that with a grain of salt thou, considering he STILL says the ENT is only 308 Meters or whatever.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

As for direct evidence, the best we have is this image:
http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/trek-trailer-large-shuttle.jpg

Assuming the chick on the ladder is 1.6 meters tall, from the landing pad to the top of the nacelle would give us a height of almost exactly 3 meters. Again, consistent with a four-deck, two shelf shuttlebay with deck heights of around 3 meters, which seems perfectly consistent with the shuttlebay scene.

In any case, if you're trying to get a PRECISE estimate, the bridge window is still your best bet, since our estimates of its size are less ambiguous and its position and proportions compared to the actual ship are extremely clear.

Except that the fantail scene clearly shows a bay MUCH higher than "two decks". I'm going to have go dig it up I guess.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Except that we have a considerable scale change mid production.

Irrelevant since the bridge window maintains proportion no matter how you scale the ship, which may or may not be true for the shuttlebay.

Wrong. The bridge window is a constant, based on the on set size. The windows and detailing on the model were obviously done at a point where they envisioned a smaller ship.

What are you talking about? On a smaller ship, it wouldn't have been a window at all, it would have been a sensor thingie like the TMP refit. If anything, the size of the bridge viewscreen is THE reason why the ship was rescaled in the first place: they didn't want to add a big obvious "Kelvin style" window to the front of the bridge so they rectonned it to the "sensors" and scaled the ship accordingly.

Then along came the huge shuttles, and up went the scale. They just never bothered to adjust the details.

Why would they? Upscaling the ship means upscaling the details. The sparsity of windows is explicable in both cases, though with the upscaling only their SIZE increases.

That's exactly what you were trying do do just before now, scale by the bridge window, isn't it?

Yes, the window. Not the AIRLOCK, which we have never seen up close. For all we know the airlock hatch is actually a docking complex complete with probes, EVA pods and a docking adaptor ala 2010.

That shuttle is way bigger than a Blackhawk, esp side to side.

But not that much taller, esp side to side. Coincidentally that engine nacelle appears to be the same size as the UH-60s engine.

Ok, I didn't connect this number with you...I though you were one of the ones arguing for a much smaller number...my apologies.

Granted. Just noting that a 4 meter high shuttle would only work for a kilometer long Enterpirse and that just doesn't seem right.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

As for direct evidence, the best we have is this image:
http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/trek-trailer-large-shuttle.jpg

Assuming the chick on the ladder is 1.6 meters tall, from the landing pad to the top of the nacelle would give us a height of almost exactly 3 meters. Again, consistent with a four-deck, two shelf shuttlebay with deck heights of around 3 meters, which seems perfectly consistent with the shuttlebay scene.

In any case, if you're trying to get a PRECISE estimate, the bridge window is still your best bet, since our estimates of its size are less ambiguous and its position and proportions compared to the actual ship are extremely clear.

Except that the fantail scene clearly shows a bay MUCH higher than "two decks". I'm going to have go dig it up I guess.

The WHOLE BAY is about 4 decks, which comes to 12 to 14 meters high. Each shelf would be 6 to 8 meters high, which--again--is about the hangar level of a modern aircraft carrier. If anything this seems consistent with the visuals, especially if we accept a bit of distorted perspective.

 

[zenfakor]

Look, OK, I have Jeffries tubes inside of me, and one mans enterprise isnt as big as anothers, LMAO.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ I hope for your sake Jeffries is using protection.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Ok, I didn't connect this number with you...I though you were one of the ones arguing for a much smaller number...my apologies.

Granted. Just noting that a 4 meter high shuttle would only work for a kilometer long Enterpirse and that just doesn't seem right.

I already stipulated that I accepted the 3m shuttle height.

At any rate, here's the "fantail" cap and my anyalysis. My figures in red...the other guy made a mistake in measuring, IMO, and used a 4m shuttle height.

I used the grounded shuttle on the right as my measure stick, because I know it's on the actual deck. I then stacked "shuttle heights" at the centerline of the deck to the top of the bay door arch. It came to a total of 8 "shuttle heights". At 3m, that makes that height 24m. (actually a bit bigger than the other guy had it. Keeping his total hangar height line proportionate to his overall length line, I recalculated a length of 1080m.

I'll be generous and give an allowance of 15% for slight measuring errors and or any angle distortion (which I think is high, but I'll high-ball the factor). Correcting by 15% yeilds a length of ~918m. Close enough to 900 I'll drop the 18m as a further allowance.

That's a minimum for how big the E MUST be to have that shuttlebay as deptcted.

The window and the airlock are NOT reliable scales, as their proportionat sizes were determined BEFORE the overall upscaling of the ship.

 

[Silversmok3]

On this episode of '20/20'

Will the real Enterprise please stand up?How big is it?10 miles long?5 inches?700 meters?Several scientists weigh in on the matter ,one offering a theory of IMAX pixels as compared to the Metric system....

 

[darkwing_duck1]

On this episode of '20/20'

Will the real Enterprise please stand up?How big is it?10 miles long?5 inches?700 meters?Several scientists weigh in on the matter ,one offering a theory of IMAX pixels as compared to the Metric system....

Is that show even still on? I used to watch it every week!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The window and the airlock are NOT reliable scales, as their proportionat sizes were determined BEFORE the overall upscaling of the ship.

I keep telling you this is irrelevant. The airlock because we have no idea how big it is and the window because we know exactly how big it is in proportion to the rest of the ship. That the SCALE was increased does not make the PROPORTION unreliable, in fact quite the opposite: it clearly demonstrates an intent to make the ship larger by matching a small detail with a comparatively large space. As I said, it seems likely that the designers turned the "sensors" into "windows" in order to avoid a big Kelvin-style feature on the front of the bridge, and scaled up the ship accordingly.

Otherwise this claim is just incoherent; unless you're saying that we've been looking at the enterprise trough a funhouse mirror and the bridge window is "actually" as large as the deflector dish, the visual evidence speaks for itself.

used the grounded shuttle on the right as my measure stick

And erroneously at that, since you cannot actually see where the struts are, nor can you see whether the shuttle is on deck level with the fantail or recessed slightly in a hangar level. On the other hand, using the original "airborne" shuttle as the measuring stick and using the correct "3 meter" figure from gear to nacelle gives you, again, five shuttle lengths, or roughly fifteen meters.

Not that any of this matters because you are again counting pixels from Bernd Russel's Hissy Fit diagram which was doodled into existence eight months before the movie was even released.

But you've demonstrated so far a desire to take visual cues from things you can barely see whose proportions are anything but clear and then extrapolate these to get totally self-contradictory estimates. Fine. Have fun. Meanwhile the only sources we have are still sticking to a 700 (plus or minus) meter figure, including ILM and Bad Robot, so... yeah.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I keep telling you this is irrelevant. The airlock because we have no idea how big it is and the window because we know exactly how big it is in proportion to the rest of the ship.

We DONT know how big the window is in proportion to the ship from the detailing. The detailing was scaled to the hull of the ship with a certain ship size in mind. AFTER the detailing was done, the size of the ship was altered. The WINDOW WAS NEVER RESCALED, and thus is no longer a reliable measure for ANYTHING.

That the SCALE was increased does not make the PROPORTION unreliable, in fact quite the opposite: it clearly demonstrates an intent to make the ship larger by matching a small detail with a comparatively large space.

It absolutely DOES, because they no longer are the SAME scale. The window on the hull is now severat times LARGER in proportion to the hull than it should be. The window on the hull no longer scales correctly to the dimentions of the window on the set, so the scale is rendered inaccurate.

As I said, it seems likely that the designers turned the "sensors" into "windows" in order to avoid a big Kelvin-style feature on the front of the bridge, and scaled up the ship accordingly.

There is no evidence of this whatsoever

the visual evidence speaks for itself.

Yes, it does, and you aren't listening to it.

used the grounded shuttle on the right as my measure stick

And erroneously at that, since you cannot actually see where the struts are, nor can you see whether the shuttle is on deck level with the fantail or recessed slightly in a hangar level.

Yes you can, as you can see the level of the deck below the railing, as demonstrated in the cap.

On the other hand, using the original "airborne" shuttle as the measuring stick and using the correct "3 meter" figure from gear to nacelle gives you, again, five shuttle lengths, or roughly fifteen meters.

The shuttle is tilted at a funny angle, which makes that mark too big.

Not that any of this matters because you are again counting pixels from Bernd Russel's Hissy Fit diagram which was doodled into existence eight months before the movie was even released.

Matches the movie detail pretty close...want me to use another profile, tell me which one and where to find it and I'll redo the calcs.

Edit, ok, using the model image found here

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3040259&postcount=745

I snapped some lines and started counting

since this is a pure profile shot, no perspective distortion should mar the numbers.

The length overall of the ship is 48 "shuttlebay heights" .

Plugging in the three top contenders for that figure gets us:

15m shuttlebay = 720m (2362') length
20m shuttlebay = 960m (3149') length
24m shuttlebay = 1152m (3779') length


Take your pick.

#1 is only 6% under the 2500' (762m) given on the Interactive Tour site.

#2 is only 5% over the 3000' (914m) length given by various other sources, including ILM.

#3 is 21% over the 3000' (914m) from ILM, et al.

At this point, barring any new evidence, I'll agree to throw out #3.

I would still prefer #2, based on the apparent size of the shuttles in conjunction with the shuttle bay, but I suppose I could accept the 2500' length as well (bigger than newtype's preferred figure, but only 6%).

Edit again: using the 2500' length, by the way, on that image scales out the airlock AND the window at ~2-2.5m tall. That actually WOULD be a very close fit to their actual assumed sizes. newtype may be closer to being right than I am, just a little short.

 

[ST-One]

Firstly, the floor of the shuttle bay is not on the same level as the edge of the fantail itself, it's considerably lower. That means that we don't even see the entirety of the shuttle you used to measure the bay.
Secondly, you simply cannot draw a line from the tip of the fantail to the edge of the door-frame to measure anything here. That alone would give you false numbers. Add to that all the perspective distortion in that image and your numbers are even more inaccurate.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Firstly, the floor of the shuttle bay is not on the same level as the edge of the fantail itself, it's considerably lower. That means that we don't even see the entirety of the shuttle you used to measure the bay.
Secondly, you simply cannot draw a line from the tip of the fantail to the edge of the door-frame to measure anything here. That alone would give you false numbers. Add to that all the perspective distortion in that image and your numbers are even more inaccurate.

As you may or may not be aware (depending on how much farther you've gotten), my position has modified some since the post you quoted.

 

[DSG2k]

Darkwing,

Your analysis does not account for perspective. It makes sense to conclude, in the absence of other information, that the shuttle you measure is as deep within the ship as the first shuttle on the second level (i.e. right above it in the pic). That shuttle has a pylon between it and the camera . . . they both have another one like that at their sterns.

Ergo, the maximum ceiling height you should be measuring to is only where your white erasing occurs or thereabout. That will result in an 18m shuttlebay height measurement (or so), for a total ship length (using your non-canon and reportedly-inaccurate side view) of 810 meters.

Note that I do not agree with this value . . . I am simply pointing out the result of a single correction to your work.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Darkwing,

Your analysis does not account for perspective. It makes sense to conclude, in the absence of other information, that the shuttle you measure is as deep within the ship as the first shuttle on the second level (i.e. right above it in the pic). That shuttle has a pylon between it and the camera . . . they both have another one like that at their sterns.

Ergo, the maximum ceiling height you should be measuring to is only where your white erasing occurs or thereabout. That will result in an 18m shuttlebay height measurement (or so), for a total ship length (using your non-canon and reportedly-inaccurate side view) of 810 meters.

Note that I do not agree with this value . . . I am simply pointing out the result of a single correction to your work.

As I pointed out to ST One my analysis has changed since that post.

Go up about 3-4 posts from this one and look at the tail end for my new sets of figures.

I now am taking the position that the 2500'/762m Interactive Tour length is a workable figure, and that the details acutally seem to scale out fairly well at that size (assuming the new model render I'm working from is accurate. I am accepting newtype's 3m shuttle height (which was the lower end of my original estimate range anyways. and plugging everything in shows him only 6% off from that figure anyways.

 

[SonicRanger]

... The detailing was scaled to the hull of the ship with a certain ship size in mind. AFTER the detailing was done, the size of the ship was altered ...

This is only conjecture that some people have accepted as fact. You have no evidence to support this.