This was very interasting! http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/09/new-details-on-star-trek-vfx-ship-sizes-revealed/
Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)
- Thread starter Strat
- Start date
- Status
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
No they do not.
Transporters break down matter into it's constituent components on a sub-atomic level, assemble those particles into a stream (called the "matter" stream"), transmit the matter stream to the target, and reassemble the matter.
Replicators operate on the same principle, except that once they break down the raw "stock" matter, they manipulate the "pattern" to transform it into a different substance and rematerialize it.
In NX-01's time they used a process called "protien resequencing" to create raw foodstuffs, which were then conventionally prepared by chefs. The transporter had only just been invented and certified safe for bio-matter as of the 01's launch. Kirk's era used a more advanced form of the same.
Apparently more closely than you.
Not big enough compared to the volumes we are discussing.
And no amount of "efficiency" can make something smaller than physics dictates it must be. O2 can be stored as LOX (liquid oxygen, which is more dense than oxygen as a vapor) but that is as far as you can compress it.
Doesn't mean it can't break down (and on many occasions HAS). Also there's combat to consider.
Which still needs to consume/expend deuterium and antideuterium to produce it's power, which must be stored.
Yes, it has been, just not the way you have it. I suggest you go to Memory Alpha and read the sections on transporters and replicators, which has all the necessary show examples and citations.
Not denying that we have acheived a seeming transport of an object (acutally a photon, not an atom, IIRC), but it has not been yet verified.
And the tech you describe is still synthesizing FROM existing matter, not creating new matter.
I'm not calling treknology magic. I'm calling what YOU are INCORRECTLY describing as "treknology" magic.
Figured I'd put this up! http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/new-ship-scales-revealed/#comment-4307 You know in comparison the windows on the NU-E don't look that much bigger then the one's on the E-E.
Well, at least the size has been verified. Let's see how long before Bernd changes the figure on his website. I won't hold my breath. 
Poor Bernd.
There is indeed a subtle difference between not believing something to be true, and not wanting to believe something to be true. I just feel bad for him.
I don't feel sorry for him, he's the very definition of the hard-headed, oblivious purist.
Edit: I noticed his STXI commentary page tonight...2 of 3 of his issues are easily dismissed (the precedent for such large ships, and window number issue). The scaling issue is open to question, but even if the ship were just upscaled, why does it matter? Its easy to assume twice as many decks.
RAMA
Last edited:
What exactly have I said about transporters that contradicts what you just said?
They use existing matter (people or objects on a specific location or a transporter pad) that they convert into energy which is transferred to a different location and re-materialized into what it was before it became energy.
I am well aware of the technical terms they utilized, just didn't use it here.
Replicators need energy which was created either from the main power source or from recycling matter.
The recycling process was described actually on more than one occasions to my recollection ... before the 24th century, waste and used objects were broken down to their basic elements and then re-assembled into something completely new (as you yourself stated, the NX-01 used protein re sequencing, and in Kirk's era, they effectively used a similar process on a more advanced level.
In the 24th century, this process was replaced with the replicators when they decided to convert everything into energy instead and then manipulate that energy on similar principles like the transporters do to create a new object (provided it's formula - > the chemical composition of the object - exists in the computer).
Replicators don't use pre-existing matter which is broken down and re-assembled into something new.
They use energy (which either came from the main power source or the matter that was recycled into energy) which is manipulated to create the chemical composition of the object and materialize it into a desired object.
My point was: same principles, more advanced techniques in over 120 years of technological progression.
Uhm ... the Enterprise in the new movie is larger than a Sovereign class for one thing and more advanced compared to the TOS version.
And for the record ... star-ships in Trek were not established (to my recollection) to utilize storage tanks for air.
They do have life-support systems which would likely have to be vastly different/superior/efficient compared to the ones we have today.
And it's likely those systems operate on the premise they can recycle CO2 into O2 ... after all, in the regular timeline, those same systems were used to simulate radically different environments on board ships which essentially means they have radically advanced/different technology.
Also, you're using contemporary physics here?
We're talking about the future ... over 200 years from our perspective (new movie wise of course).
These are the same people that are able to travel faster than light, have mastered artificial gravity by Archer's time, and have the ability to transport people nearly instantly from one location to the other.
Numerous pre-stablished scientific principles from 200 years ago were proven either completely wrong today or we found a way around them.
Are you seriously suggesting that our present technological advancement and knowledge of science is all there is to be?
Don't make me laugh. We are in technological infancy, and are merely more advanced compared to when we used to be.
I have not suggested it doesn't break down ... that's why crews exist onboard ships so they can maintain and repair the systems if they do break down or go offline.
Besides, life-support systems are probably always monitored by the computer and maintenance crews to make sure they keep functioning right.
Your point being that the core requires matter/anti-matter interactions to create energy? Of course it does.
I was merely stating replicators don't break down matter when creating an object (unless they decide to recycle a watch which would convert into sufficient energy to materialize a meal or a pair of boots as Janeway pointed out to Chakotay in Year of Hell ... and how did he create the thing to begin with if not from the ship's energy? ... which is why Janeway refused it because they were limited on power and she considered the gift useless initially), they manipulate energy to create an object and that's why replicators were usually more taxing on power unless you recycle a debris field from a destroyed ship and get surplus of energy to work with.
As for storing deuterium and anti-deuterium ...
Well, Voyager's Warp Core for example can go on for 3 years without refilling (per Janeway herself).
Deuterium would be their fuel ... and Voyager at the very least had the capacity to store enough of it to power it's engines for 1000 Ly's.
Memory Alpha is a good website, but also several things that heavily rely on fan speculation and the technical manuals ... plenty of which have been contradicted on screen.
My bad ... a photon ... but it has been verified, and years ago.
Have I suggested anywhere that what we were doing was creation of new matter out of energy?
No.
I was using that as an example to show we are developing technology which is based on the one used in NX-01 and Kir's TOS ship.
Please avoid making assumptions that have no basis.
Actually you DID describe Trek technology as 'magic' because you refused to accept the fact their technology is based on over 200 years of advancement in science and better understanding of physics and quantum mechanics for example (also aid from technologically superior species), not to mention advanced/superior/efficient storage capacity (which you keep on refuting using early 21st century science, understanding and sheer arrogance that what we know now is all there is to be).
Last edited by a moderator:
This discussion is a LOT more interesting than the continual attempts to resolve the size of the ship with shuttles/viewscreens.
Lol ... to each their own.
As for the size of the ship ... the 718 meters (or 714 meters) has been stated a few times by now per officials, so I don't think any further guesses are necessary.
It's larger than the Sovereign class ... not a big deal really since SF would be prompted to halt initial development of the Constitution class due to Kelvins destruction and implement technologies that would make the ship not just larger but overall more advanced than the TOS version.
As for the size of the ship ... the 718 meters (or 714 meters) has been stated a few times by now per officials, so I don't think any further guesses are necessary.
It's larger than the Sovereign class ... not a big deal really since SF would be prompted to halt initial development of the Constitution class due to Kelvins destruction and implement technologies that would make the ship not just larger but overall more advanced than the TOS version.
Last edited:
I bet the Y-Class and J-Class freighters seen in ENT, when their cargo pods were attached, were over 700 meters, if not a great deal longer.
I was just pondering the new/official size of 700+ meters, in relation to the visual details. What if the confusing/smaller scale details were done that way on purpose in order to give future directors the option to scale the ship differently. Depending on storyline requirements and visual aesthetics desired by the director.
Since we've seen this done before, and is somewhat a requirement of Trek canon.
Since we've seen this done before, and is somewhat a requirement of Trek canon.
Last edited:
EJD1984, an interesting suggestion. 
I still wonder if perhaps J.J. knew what size he wanted it, the art team was operating on the assumption that it was going to be roughly the old size, and at some point (around the Mandel firing incident) when it was too late to change the details too much, J.J. made clear that the ship was "always" 719 meters long, no matter how the details looked.
And what's that quote from Arthur C. Clarke? Paraphrasing: "Any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to more primitive peoples"?
I still wonder if perhaps J.J. knew what size he wanted it, the art team was operating on the assumption that it was going to be roughly the old size, and at some point (around the Mandel firing incident) when it was too late to change the details too much, J.J. made clear that the ship was "always" 719 meters long, no matter how the details looked.
And what's that quote from Arthur C. Clarke? Paraphrasing: "Any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to more primitive peoples"?
EJD1984, an interesting suggestion.
I still wonder if perhaps J.J. knew what size he wanted it, the art team was operating on the assumption that it was going to be roughly the old size, and at some point (around the Mandel firing incident) when it was too late to change the details too much, J.J. made clear that the ship was "always" 719 meters long, no matter how the details looked.
And what's that quote from Arthur C. Clarke? Paraphrasing: "Any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to more primitive peoples"?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws
good law
You're new here, aren't you? I'm 100% sure we did exactly that twenty pages ago. They reconcile just fine, assuming the ship really is 762 meters long.
Cargo appears to be stored in the same area--or sometimes alongside--the actual shuttles. Basically this makes the NuEnterprise's shuttlebay more like a combined hangar/dock/airport facility than a single-purpose, super-clean, dedicated shuttlebay.
718 meters, then. That fits our projections from a few pages ago, assuming a 2.8 meter deck height.
No, it's LONGER than the Sovereign class. From the end of the fantail to the front of the saucer it comes in at just about 400 meters, comparable to the slightly bulkier E-E whose primary and secondary hulls have about the same length.
Of course, both ships are somewhat smaller than the Ambassador class, which was developed at the beginning of the 24th century. Make of that what you will.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm fine with that. Okay who wants to put it to a vote to Finally close this thread? Because it seems ALL are calculations seem to at least end up in the 700 meter range.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Read it, learn it. live it...
Not really...I'm getting tired of beating my head against the wall here. Deks is ignoring the canon data in favor of his personal theory that transporters and replicators make matter from energy.
Furthermore, his assertions that there is never a need for any kind of backup or reserve flies completely in the face of any and all logic.
His bald assertion that Trek's "technology" (which if it operated the way he described it would be magic, not technology) makes such issues easily fixable would get crews killed when the Handwavium Device they were depending on from moment to moment for food water and air broke down, leaving them without.
Oh, and Deks:
You don't know MA's canon policy very well then. Techmanuals are NOT canon, but can be freferenced in some cases as BACKGROUND. Those references are ALWAYS set off from the canon portion of the article.
Fan speculation is NEVER a permitted resource.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Count me in...this thread went zombie on the OT PAGES ago...
- Status
Similar threads
