as a life long Trekkie (I'm 21 and my uncle raised me on TOS) I have no problem with the new Enterprise being 700m long. My whole take on the thing is (as if i matter) that when the Kelvin encountered Nero's ship, Starfleet was like holy crap if the romulans, earths #1 rivals, have ships that huge and powerful we need to do some major rethinking on our ship design, hence the giant redesign of the constitution-class and the others we saw on screen, also would explain why the enterprise was not launch until 2258 instead of 2245, Starfleet needed the extra years to design the constitution because it is so big
Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)
- Thread starter Strat
- Start date
- Status
Yep, that seems to be the prevailing explanation, which is fine. Doubling the old accepted size is a little hard for some (myself included) to swallow, but we know nothing about the capabilities of 23rd century engineering technology, so who's to say?
Broken link.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
In that case, it seems that there is NOTHING that we can ALL agree on =]. Seriously though, when I meet that guy, there's gonna be words.
Also, I know it's a little off topic, but someone else mentioned official specs and blueprints. Does anyone know if the encyclopedia's been updated recently?
Congratulations--that's the first post in this thread that I think we can ALL agree on.
Wait for it.
Congratulations--that's the first post in this thread that I think we can ALL agree on.
Wait for it.
I disagree!
In that case, it seems that there is NOTHING that we can ALL agree on =]. Seriously though, when I meet that guy, there's gonna be words.
Also, I know it's a little off topic, but someone else mentioned official specs and blueprints. Does anyone know if the encyclopedia's been updated recently?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well boys and girls, here is ANOTHER data point for the length of the Enterprise--this article at CG Society puts the alternate timeline Enterprise at 2,357 feet (718 meters) in length.
OK, I'm now officially annoyed. I try not to be a nerdball about minutiae like this, but would it have killed TPTB to figure out how big the hero ship is supposed to be?! Grr.
OK, I'm now officially annoyed. I try not to be a nerdball about minutiae like this, but would it have killed TPTB to figure out how big the hero ship is supposed to be?! Grr.
You can't work out height using a perspective shot like that. It doesn't work. The height of the saucer would be more than that.
I was bored, and so i've been sucked into this silliness...
At the end of the first ‘under construction’ teaser you can see a guy stand up on the bridge dome (even though the bridge is lower down now, I’m still calling it that). Looking at top-down pics, the dome is the same width as the shuttle hanger at the back. That makes the bridge window way too big.
Assuming the ship is 725 meters in length (the size according to http://gizmodo.com/5253324/how-big-is-the-new-enterprise-compared-to-galactica), that would make….
The long windows along the saucer rim about 6 metres long and about a meter and a quarter tall. The smaller windows (on the saucer and the lower engineering levels) would be about a meter-square. All this makes me think windows on the smaller TMP Enterprise might actually be too small?
There would be more decks without windows (which would tactically be better – surely all that glass is a weakness in space battles).
The photon torpedo launcher is the right size for a 725m ship.
The bridge window would be about 12 meters across! Oops! (the bridge is also lower down than before, and the bridge dome would not correspond to the bridge ceiling). IMO, a bridge dome to scale would look horrible on such a big ship.
The airlock (now escape-pod launcher?) outer ring would be about 5 meters tall, but the inner hatch itself would be about 3 meters tall – still too big for the pod itself when we see it.
All the big shuttles should fit in the nice big hangar.
The Enterprise Brewery would fit (and the deck spacing would probably be very different down there), and judging by where the warp cores ejected it would probably share a wall with the shuttle hangar.
At the end of the first ‘under construction’ teaser you can see a guy stand up on the bridge dome (even though the bridge is lower down now, I’m still calling it that). Looking at top-down pics, the dome is the same width as the shuttle hanger at the back. That makes the bridge window way too big.
Assuming the ship is 725 meters in length (the size according to http://gizmodo.com/5253324/how-big-is-the-new-enterprise-compared-to-galactica), that would make….
The long windows along the saucer rim about 6 metres long and about a meter and a quarter tall. The smaller windows (on the saucer and the lower engineering levels) would be about a meter-square. All this makes me think windows on the smaller TMP Enterprise might actually be too small?
There would be more decks without windows (which would tactically be better – surely all that glass is a weakness in space battles).
The photon torpedo launcher is the right size for a 725m ship.
The bridge window would be about 12 meters across! Oops! (the bridge is also lower down than before, and the bridge dome would not correspond to the bridge ceiling). IMO, a bridge dome to scale would look horrible on such a big ship.
The airlock (now escape-pod launcher?) outer ring would be about 5 meters tall, but the inner hatch itself would be about 3 meters tall – still too big for the pod itself when we see it.
All the big shuttles should fit in the nice big hangar.
The Enterprise Brewery would fit (and the deck spacing would probably be very different down there), and judging by where the warp cores ejected it would probably share a wall with the shuttle hangar.
Good thing it's not glass, then.
Sorry - works fine for me, on dialup even. Anybody else ... ?
Thanks - some sort of BW clipping it seems. I forgot all about that scene during the film! Here's Enterprise over the shipyard:
Working out this new number of 2,357 feet, I came up with this TMP comparison.
Which would give us these rough dimensions.
1. Saucer rim thickness, 57ft
2. Saucer window height, 6ft
3. Docking port diameter, 14ft.
In my lonely little opinion, this is just a way too much overkill up-sizing. When taking into account the visual styling cues we see on screen. They could of at the very least given some more detailing to give us a good visual reference as to the scale of the new ship. I.E: Instead of two rows of windows in the saucer (suggesting two decks), had 3-4 rows of windows to show us the enormity and new massive scale.
looked pretty flat to me, although granted it isn't 100% flat on perspective wise ...or nearly besides my data isn't that far off other estimates...
Working out this new number of 2,357 feet, I came up with this TMP comparison.
Which would give us these rough dimensions.
1. Saucer rim thickness, 57ft
2. Saucer window height, 6ft
3. Docking port diameter, 14ft.
In my lonely little opinion, this is just a way too much overkill up-sizing. When taking into account the visual styling cues we see on screen. They could of at the very least given some more detailing to give us a good visual reference as to the scale of the new ship. I.E: Instead of two rows of windows in the saucer (suggesting two decks), had 3-4 rows of windows to show us the enormity and new massive scale.
As someone who works in imaging technology, I smell the stench of people pulling numbers out of their ass. Why do I get the sense that these guys are all getting these from some old email chain they dug out of their archive?
Those window sizes are fairly ridiculous. Who the hell needs an observation deck?
I agree, there just seems to be conflicting numbers all over the place. Even from "official" sources.
Where I think some confusion is coming from is a statement from someone in the production saying the new ship is twice the size of the old Enterprise. And some are thinking that meant in a 2D profile. Where as it may have meant in total interior (3D) volume.
When you look at it from that angle, and visual references - i.e. docking port. I came up with this more realistic scaling of 457m, and everything we saw on screen would still fit - and then some.
I'm also working on a project at work that is being done in metric, and amongst the mechanical team there's still an occasional misinterpretation in conversions between metric & english
Last edited:
A job for someone like... Geoff Mandel?
This is getting pretty redonkulous. That's right, redonkulous.
I'm still somewhat convinced that someone saw a 947 in reference to the TOS ship and concluded that was meters, and didn't realize til sometime midway through the process that it was meant to be feet, and kept going with the big size anyway.
For those playing with the images, if you scale the saucers of the TOS/refit/nu together to the same diameter, is the nu shorter than the others? If it is, and it corresponds to 700is meters, we may have some corroboration that what I said happened did indeed happen.
(Eagerly awaiting May 29th, btw Prof.
)
Happens at my company with alarming regularity. I seem to recall NASA's Mars Orbiter falling prey to that sort of error as well.
- Status
Similar threads
