Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[dougkeenan]

^ Check out the beginning of ST:IV.

 

[ancient]

So how do the vectoring nacelles figure into all this?

I'm waiting for more official sizes of the Enterprise from ILM. How many do we have so far, 4 or 5?

 

[miraclefan]

WOW! it's not every day a thread goes over a THOUSAND posts!

 

[Patrickivan]

1024!

We can wait for the "official" dimensions from ILM, but it's not canon until we see it on screen...

Not that I really care- I'm all for figuring it out on our own. Official sources make errors too.

But just from looking at the ship- the windows (unknow sizes I admitt) and the docking rings (again unknown sizes), it just doesn't look much larger then the original. Longer because of the oversized nacelles, but not the saucer and engineering sections... That huge engineering scene could take place easily in less then half the lower hull. The shuttle bay however, seems to be fucking everything up.

 

[ancient]

Well...

Here's what John Eaves has to say about it:

She was always planned to be a huge ship,, No scaling up and the original TOS wasn’t even used as a measuring rod,, They set out to make a big ship, drew up the concepts , set a rough figure of measurement and then went for it!

Linky: http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/new-ship-scales-revealed/ (6th post down)

My only response to this is: VERY ROUGH.

 

[Silversmok3]

*sigh*

This thread only has about 200 posts of useful info,its just the same data recycled 5 times over.

 

[Deks]

But it is still technology, and still abides by the rules of physics and reality.

Even in the Trek universe, you cannot make something from nothing. You have to have SOME substance to start with.

Wrong.
In the 24th century, replicators operate through conversion of energy into energy and back again ... same thing like transporters.
So essentially, for the replicators you only need energy and a formula of an object you wish to create.

Granted, they wouldn't have replicators on XI's Enterprise, but recycling technology coupled with their version of food dispensers would be hundreds of years more advanced and efficient compared to what we can do today (and given the fact that the movie takes place over 200 years into the future ... I'd say it's safe to say they can do WAY more compared to what we can imagine or do with our technology).
Even in the TOS era, ships would have enough storage space, or the means to store large amounts of materials, food/water for 400 people for a 5 year mission.

An even larger ship could have more dedicated facilities ...
Given the fact that the XI Enterprise was more advanced in comparison to the TOS one in every respect and larger, it stands to reason it can do these things.

Besides, technology advances, and thinking that our perception of storage of food and everything else would be the same 200 years from now is ludicrous.

We are in a technological infancy.

 

[Gepard]

Wrong.
In the 24th century, replicators operate through conversion of energy into energy and back again ... <snip>

You still need to get that energy from somewhere. If you replicate one pound of hamburger, you need as much energy as there is matter in the hamburger, plus however much energy is required to operate the repicator. So if you're storing it somewhere--say, as matter and antimatter in tanks--you're going to need at least as much matter in those tanks as all the physical items you replicate. It doesn't matter if it's not stored in the shape of a hamburger, that matter has to come from somewhere. Period, full stop. Any other claim has Trek technology operating on magic, and removes it from the realm of science entirely.

 

[Shaw]

But it is still technology, and still abides by the rules of physics and reality...

Well, again, ask yourself what rules or known laws of physics that existed in the 1870s does nuclear power work by? If you know anything at all about the history of physics, you know that the answer is none! Nuclear power back then would be fantasy because none of the physics it is based on had yet been developed or discovered. Heck, at that point in time Maxwell's Equations were the cutting edge of physics and not fully accepted by the physics community at large.

What physics has yet to be developed or discovered today? We don't know.

But much of what we do today would amount to handwavium back in the 1870s.

As for what happens when things go wrong... it is called interesting plot turns! In some cases writers write in short comings to make a story more interesting.

As I said, science fiction is the wrong genera for you.

 

[Bertie]

The New Enterprise ain't a closed system, either—those Bussard Collectors are doing something, even if they be partly blocked

 

[Deks]

Wrong.
In the 24th century, replicators operate through conversion of energy into energy and back again ... <snip>

You still need to get that energy from somewhere. If you replicate one pound of hamburger, you need as much energy as there is matter in the hamburger, plus however much energy is required to operate the repicator. So if you're storing it somewhere--say, as matter and antimatter in tanks--you're going to need at least as much matter in those tanks as all the physical items you replicate. It doesn't matter if it's not stored in the shape of a hamburger, that matter has to come from somewhere. Period, full stop. Any other claim has Trek technology operating on magic, and removes it from the realm of science entirely.

True ... but for these people energy is not a problem since they can power a star-ship for 5 years, propel it at FTL speeds and provide energy for transporters that convert matter into energy and back again (which is used on a frequent basis btw).
So the energy the ship itself is producing is enormous compared to our standards.
To them (at least in the 24th century) a replicator is essentially no different than any other appliance in terms of energy requirements.

 

[Squiggy]

Well...

Here's what John Eaves has to say about it:

She was always planned to be a huge ship,, No scaling up and the original TOS wasn’t even used as a measuring rod,, They set out to make a big ship, drew up the concepts , set a rough figure of measurement and then went for it!

Linky: http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/new-ship-scales-revealed/ (6th post down)

My only response to this is: VERY ROUGH.

That's the biggest .3% difference I've ever seen.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

But it is still technology, and still abides by the rules of physics and reality.

Even in the Trek universe, you cannot make something from nothing. You have to have SOME substance to start with.

Wrong.
In the 24th century, replicators operate through conversion of energy into energy and back again ... same thing like transporters.So essentially, for the replicators you only need energy and a formula of an object you wish to create.

WRONG. Neither transporters NOR replicatos operate as you describe. They break down EXISTING matter, manipulate it, and reassemble it.

Granted, they wouldn't have replicators on XI's Enterprise, but recycling technology coupled with their version of food dispensers would be hundreds of years more advanced and efficient compared to what we can do today (and given the fact that the movie takes place over 200 years into the future ... I'd say it's safe to say they can do WAY more compared to what we can imagine or do with our technology).

Still doesn't explain WHERE the raw stocks of materials are stored.

Even in the TOS era, ships would have enough storage space, or the means to store large amounts of materials, food/water for 400 people for a 5 year mission.

Not on any of the blueprints I've ever seen.

Besides, technology advances, and thinking that our perception of storage of food and everything else would be the same 200 years from now is ludicrous.

You can "perceive" it any way you want. The biological fact remains that a human needs x amount of air/day, x amount of water, and x amount of food. If you are depending on your Handwavium Device to produce it "just in time", you are a fool and when your Device breaks down you will either suffocate, freeze, or starve.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

But it is still technology, and still abides by the rules of physics and reality...

Well, again, ask yourself what rules or known laws of physics that existed in the 1870s does nuclear power work by? If you know anything at all about the history of physics, you know that the answer is none! Nuclear power back then would be fantasy because none of the physics it is based on had yet been developed or discovered. Heck, at that point in time Maxwell's Equations were the cutting edge of physics and not fully accepted by the physics community at large.

What physics has yet to be developed or discovered today? We don't know.

But much of what we do today would amount to handwavium back in the 1870s.

The laws of physics and biology are the same today as they were then, even if we hadn't described or understood them.

You couldn't create something from nothing then, you can't do it now, and you won't be able to do it in the future...

As for what happens when things go wrong... it is called interesting plot turns! In some cases writers write in short comings to make a story more interesting.

And that's where plotholes and other poor writing come from.

As I said, science fiction is the wrong genera for you.

What YOU are referring to isn't science fiction, it's fantasy with a few science terms thrown in for disguise.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The New Enterprise ain't a closed system, either—those Bussard Collectors are doing something, even if they be partly blocked

Life support certainly is. Atmosphere, water, food. In deep space, what you have inside the hull is ALL you have.

Pulling in a few dozen stray atoms of hydrogen over the span of trillions of killometers isn't going to give you a self sustaining source of fuel either.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

True ... but for these people energy is not a problem since they can power a star-ship for 5 years, propel it at FTL speeds and provide energy for transporters that convert matter into energy and back again (which is used on a frequent basis btw).
So the energy the ship itself is producing is enormous compared to our standards.
To them (at least in the 24th century) a replicator is essentially no different than any other appliance in terms of energy requirements.

No, no, NO!

It doesn't work that way. It has NEVER worked that way.

Get that through your head!

 

[Gepard]

^And one can say the ship is "generating" all that energy, but where are they generating it from? It's space--they don't have the option of having an environment to interact with, so they'd have to store all of the fuel and bulk matter. There's no way around that. That matter and energy has to be on board the ship in one form or another for them to convert it to a form that can do work.

 

[ATimson]

So how do the vectoring nacelles figure into all this?

I looked for them the second time I saw the movie, and didn't see them vector. Video or it didn't happen, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Shaw]

The laws of physics and biology are the same today as they were then, even if we hadn't described or understood them.

You couldn't create something from nothing then, you can't do it now, and you won't be able to do it in the future...

Nuclear power would look like something from nothing to people of the 1870s.

But the real issue is that you are unwilling or unable to accept the fact that there are things that we do not know today. And again, if you can't deal with that, this is the wrong genera for you. If you are only capable of enjoying grounded drama/fiction based on contemporary understandings of science, I believe there are like 10 different CSI series you could watch that would meet your standards.

But I do appreciate you proving my point in earnest. The only thing that would have been better here would have been someone from the 1870s to demonstrate such short sightedness of what the future could hold.

Sorry if you feel used in this conversation, it is nothing personal... and I do thank you for your part.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The laws of physics and biology are the same today as they were then, even if we hadn't described or understood them.

You couldn't create something from nothing then, you can't do it now, and you won't be able to do it in the future...

Nuclear power would look like something from nothing to people of the 1870s.

But the real issue is that you are unwilling or unable to accept the fact that there are things that we do not know today. And again, if you can't deal with that, this is the wrong genera for you. If you are only capable of enjoying grounded drama/fiction based on contemporary understandings of science, I believe there are like 10 different CSI series you could watch that would meet your standards.

But I do appreciate you proving my point in earnest. The only thing that would have been better here would have been someone from the 1870s to demonstrate such short sightedness of what the future could hold.

Sorry if you feel used in this conversation, it is nothing personal... and I do thank you for your part.

Stop misrepresenting what I am saying. Yes, Treknology LOOKS like magic, being literally able to turn literal shit into a literal sandwich, but you still have to have the "crap" to start with. It can't make a sandwich from nothing.

Calling magic "technology" doesn't make it science. And without science, you don't have science fiction, you have fantasy. No less than Issac Asimov himself said so. I would assume you would consider HIM to know what science fiction is and is not...