Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[ST-One]

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.

Again, look past the hero ships of Ent-D and Voyager. The rest... Eh, not so different.

Why? We are talking about THE hero ship.

Then perhaps you should use the hero model of that ship for your size-estimations and not this fan-recreation.

 

[Feofilakt]

How about this?

 

[Tomalak]

When the Enterprise-E can fit in the hanger deck, then it's big enough.

 

[Johnnymuffintop]

I've said it once, I'll say it again...

STOP USING THE EX-ASTRIS MOCK-UP!
This is much better:
http://www.sextondesign.net/BG/Enterprise1701-new_schematic.jpg

 

[EJD1984]

This is the 457m (1500ft) that I came up with. I used the docking port as the baseline, assuming they're approximately the diameter. I based that on the reference of the escape pod's dia, being jettionsed from the neck's port.

This would seem to be a more "realistic" workable size.

 

[jOb]

I think that the Enterprise's size has always been really inconsistent, as some have mentioned in this thread. For instance take a look at this still from the Motion Picture. Going by that the hanger bay is about 15 metres high, which would give an overall length, taking into account the shorter nacelles, of about 700 metres. I think it's safe to say that the size really isn't all that important and that everyone should just keep her at the size that they feel she should be, in their own minds.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/4306/enterprise.jpg

[The photo portion is oversized already, but what's all the useless and unnecessary white space for, besides stretching the page? Image converted to link. - M']

 

[Guartho]

That's not a full-size shuttle, that's a work-bee. It's barely big enough to contain a grown man. It's basically a the space equivalent of one of those little utility golf-cart things you see airport security or groundskeeper Willy riding around in.

 

[rgb1701]

I'm tending to believe the nuEnt was meant to be "twice the size of the TOS 1701", which puts it around 600m-ish.

No sources to cite, just my .02 bars of GPL

 

[Calhoun24]

This is the 457m (1500ft) that I came up with. I used the docking port as the baseline, assuming they're approximately the diameter. I based that on the reference of the escape pod's dia, being jettionsed from the neck's port.

This would seem to be a more "realistic" workable size.

I prefer this resizing. I know, materials state otherwise, but to say that it's that much bigger than it's original counterpart doesn't feel right. This resizing looks like it could work, even though I still believe that the scaling should be down a little more. But if push comes to shove, this is acceptable. Nice job, EJD1984.

 

[EJD1984]

I'm tending to believe the nuEnt was meant to be "twice the size of the TOS 1701", which puts it around 600m-ish

"Twice the size" doesn't necessarily mean just in length, could also be referring to total interior volume.

The 457m scaling looks as if it would accommodate twice the interior volume, especially with the larger diameter saucer.

Reference Example:
The Ent.-D is around about twice the length of the TMP Ent., but with eight times the interior volume.

*Spock: "His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking"

 

[Irishman]

The problem with the ship being much more than ~300 meters is that the bridge winds up being massively larger than it is. The viewscreen is about 136 inches (11.3 feet) which corresponds to a 301 meter ship since the viewscreen is really a window on the front of the saucer and it's size is easily compared to the width of the saucer. If the ship were 725 meters as ILM says, then the bridge would need to be sixty or seventy feet wide....it ain't. Even if the shuttlebay is larger than a 300 meter ship can carry, the bridge is the primary set for a Star Trek ship...it has to fit the model.

It does fit the model. The 725 meter-long model.

The 725 meter figure yeilds a viewscreen of 28.5 feet....you can see the view screen in the original trailer image of the saucer on the ground. The overall opening is 39.5 feet and the viewscreen/window inside the opening works out to 28.5 feet. That makes the width of the bridge significantly larger than that...like about double, considering how much the bridge extends on each side of the screen.

My living room is 30' by 15'. Standing at one end of it and looking down the wall....there's no way in hell that viewscreen is nearly that long. And it's pretty unbelievable the bridge is 50+ feet wide....my eyes aren't that bad yet.

They used some wide angle lenses in lots of interior shots for various effects (probably to get everyone they wanted in the shot), so I'm not quite sure how useful the apparent size of the bridge viewer is.

 

[miraclefan]

This is the 457m (1500ft) that I came up with. I used the docking port as the baseline, assuming they're approximately the diameter. I based that on the reference of the escape pod's dia, being jettionsed from the neck's port.

This would seem to be a more "realistic" workable size.

That could work!

 

[Longinus]

This is the 457m (1500ft) that I came up with. I used the docking port as the baseline, assuming they're approximately the diameter. I based that on the reference of the escape pod's dia, being jettionsed from the neck's port.

This would seem to be a more "realistic" workable size.

Yes, this seems much better than the 700m Gigaprise. It makes the secondary hull about as wide as the refit has, albeit much longer, which I kinda like.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, the guys at Gizmodo estimate the main viewer to be about 26 feet wide:

http://gizmodo.com/5241562/just-how-big-is-the-enterprises-viewscreen

The ship's at least 2000 feet long.

 

[Peter the Younger]

This is the 457m (1500ft) that I came up with. I used the docking port as the baseline, assuming they're approximately the diameter. I based that on the reference of the escape pod's dia, being jettionsed from the neck's port.

This would seem to be a more "realistic" workable size.

Yes, this seems much better than the 700m Gigaprise. It makes the secondary hull about as wide as the refit has, albeit much longer, which I kinda like.

Wow, when you see just the two of them next to each other like that, the new one seems that much more enormous, especially when you the consider the difference in terms of volume. This only reinforces my preference for the smaller number. The 700 m one would be ludicrous.

 

[Gepard]

Well, the guys at Gizmodo estimate the main viewer to be about 26 feet wide:

http://gizmodo.com/5241562/just-how-big-is-the-enterprises-viewscreen

The ship's at least 2000 feet long.

Squiggy went through those numbers earlier in the thread; the external slot of the viewscreen if the Enterprise is 700 meters come out to 29 feet wide.

 

[Praetor]

Somehow I imagine someone from the production is following this thread waiting for us to decide how big it is...

 

[M'Sharak]

Somehow I imagine someone from the production is following this thread waiting for us to decide how big it is...

You know, I suspect that might not be too far off.

 

[Squiggy]

New image:

 

[EJD1984]

Well, the guys at Gizmodo estimate the main viewer to be about 26 feet wide:

http://gizmodo.com/5241562/just-how-big-is-the-enterprises-viewscreen

The ship's at least 2000 feet long.

Squiggy went through those numbers earlier in the thread; the external slot of the viewscreen if the Enterprise is 700 meters come out to 29 feet wide.

I personally doubt that the view screen is 29ft wide. I had a family room added to my house last year, 14' x 22', and the view screen does not appear to even be the length of the room.

We have to take into account lens distortion and camera angles in our assumptions as well.