So does this mean DR WHO is part of TREK canon now?484! 484! 484!
I am now beyond rational thought, and I'm just going with the length I like best.
-x! -x!!!
Ah, so it is a Tardis!
Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)
- Thread starter Strat
- Start date
- Status
My first thought is this sounds just about perfect. It puts the ship about the same size as the Ambassador class, which seems spot on.
My second thought regarding crew sizes: a Nimitz class aircraft carrier--which is about 380 meters long--has a crew of about five thousand. An Iowa class battleship at just over 250 meters had a crew of around two thousand. I think 1100 or so for a ship whose internal volume dwarfs BOTH of those craft is pretty reasonable.
Bigger one looks better.
Nero changed everything.So does this mean DR WHO is part of TREK canon now?
That still is a big ass starship.http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l245/squiggyfm/enterprises.pngCan somebody PLEASE adjust the NU-E to the corrected 2000 f 610m length?
I like that!
Last edited by a moderator:
^ I still prefer the 480 meter one myself.
By the way, RAMA, is there a larger version of that Avatar pic anywhere? I'm kinda getting tired of that crappy ex-astris image and it's high time we started using a more accurate side view if these discussions are going to be in any way meaningful.
By the way, RAMA, is there a larger version of that Avatar pic anywhere? I'm kinda getting tired of that crappy ex-astris image and it's high time we started using a more accurate side view if these discussions are going to be in any way meaningful.
Same.
This Enterprise being nearly as big as the Ent-D just doesn't sit right.
How huge would the -D be to keep the "up scaling"?
lol... u get my drift
Agreed! when are TPTB going to give us PROPER orthos like they did for the KELVIN?
Oh! and did anybody else see this?http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/2009/05/12/where-no-dp-has-gone-before/ they have a picture of what appears to be a Miranda with a secondary hull! Also by looking at the sides of the NU-E's saucer section it looks like the windows are not as big as I rememberd.
Great work DiSiLLUSiON, but I got bored and decided to play around with the earlier posted image. So please forgive me for duplicating your work. I threw it into AutoCAD played a bit. I decided that the port holes were centered between the floor and overhead deck. From that center line I assumed a 10' floor to deck height and then offset my center line by 5' in either direction. Then I scaled the image and construction lines to meet the 10' height and this is what I got.
That makes the portholes about 4'10" high. My end results do disagrees with the number that ILM got.
When I scale the ship to 2000' in over all length, interestingly enough I get 3' tall port holes and 7' between the sensor bands and a 52' or so saucer height. So I can eaisly see 5 10' high decks in there, 4 if you want to thicken up the hull.
Im just doing this for shits and giggles late at night. In any case I have to agree with what Dennis has said, this ship is the result of pisspoor scaling from the original model. I'll also agree with the others who have said (in not so many words and not all in this thread) that the guys who worked on this model took the lessons and methods from Jefferies, Probert, and Sternbach and just threw them out the window for no apparent reason. Little thought seems to have gone into this model and its relationship to the projected reality when it comes to form and function. It seems they wanted a some what recognizable silhouette of the ship and when they got close they said that was enough. But they never gave thought to the industrial design sensibilities used in the past that did indeed set Trek apart from so many other franchises. Mind you that doesn't preclude a redesign or a total reboot like Squiggy pointed out. All I am saying is that a little more thought wouldn't have been a bad thing at all. I guess that bugs me the most because its that attention to design and detail that inspired me to get into the field I am in now. Is my childhood raped? Nope wasn't even whistled at. But I do not like what they have done with the ship. Still enjoyed the hell out of the movie.
That makes the portholes about 4'10" high. My end results do disagrees with the number that ILM got.
When I scale the ship to 2000' in over all length, interestingly enough I get 3' tall port holes and 7' between the sensor bands and a 52' or so saucer height. So I can eaisly see 5 10' high decks in there, 4 if you want to thicken up the hull.
Im just doing this for shits and giggles late at night. In any case I have to agree with what Dennis has said, this ship is the result of pisspoor scaling from the original model. I'll also agree with the others who have said (in not so many words and not all in this thread) that the guys who worked on this model took the lessons and methods from Jefferies, Probert, and Sternbach and just threw them out the window for no apparent reason. Little thought seems to have gone into this model and its relationship to the projected reality when it comes to form and function. It seems they wanted a some what recognizable silhouette of the ship and when they got close they said that was enough. But they never gave thought to the industrial design sensibilities used in the past that did indeed set Trek apart from so many other franchises. Mind you that doesn't preclude a redesign or a total reboot like Squiggy pointed out. All I am saying is that a little more thought wouldn't have been a bad thing at all. I guess that bugs me the most because its that attention to design and detail that inspired me to get into the field I am in now. Is my childhood raped? Nope wasn't even whistled at. But I do not like what they have done with the ship. Still enjoyed the hell out of the movie.
I think you are viewing the past with a *tad* bit rose-colored glasses. Sure, some hero ships like Ent-D and Voyager got a lot of attention (even great blueprints), they dropped the ball on scaling most other stuff. Need I remind anyone about various Klingon ship issues over the years? Or even the hero ship Defiant - Now *that* is a ship has screwed up scaling. Worse than JJ-Prise, IMO. Just look to many fan sites and you'll see plenty of scaling arguments.
Huh - Wha....? I understand people annoyed at the scaling issue... But otherwise its form and function is NO DIFFERENT than the original TOS enterprise! All major pieces of the ship are in the same place!
Again, look past the hero ships of Ent-D and Voyager. The rest... Eh, not so different.
Rii
Rear Admiral
They all look the same to me, folks just keep rearranging them is all.
A
Amaris
Guest
I agree with DiSiLLUSiON's very well thought out work. It doesn't bother me at all if the ship is that large, hell, it makes me happy as I like Engineering. 
J.
J.
Why? We are talking about THE hero ship.
Must agree 100% with your post. The new ship got me excited initially via trailers, and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, but when nit picking the attention to detail in regards to the ship's design, shape and scale (as most of the fans would) really, really irks me.
Hopefully it will get destroyed in the next movie and there will be the 1701-A refit that will harken back to the correct ship and size. ^_^ Here's wishing.
- Status
Similar threads
