• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is interesting to compare the nuEnterprise to the aircraft carrier Enterprise, but the carrier isn't exactly the largest vessel around. Even the Queen Mary 2 is longer! Why not compare it to a supertanker like the Knock Nevis, which is 458 m? A 300-m starship was big in 1966, but not anymore. A comparison to the Knock Nevis, built in 1979, would put the nuEnterprise in a more valid context.

That's not the Enterprise that's the USS Gerald Ford which is the newest class of aircraft carrier that will be launched in I believe 2015...

Then your comparison is even more misleading.

We're all used to seeing the TOS Enterprise next to the CVN-65 Enterprise. But the USS Gerald R. Ford is shorter than the CVN-65 Enterprise. The Gerald R. Ford is 333 meters, and the Enterprise is 342 meters.

Anyway, here, you can use this for the Knock Nevis:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/jahre-viking-line.gif
 
It's also misleading because the shuttlebay has four rows of seven shuttlecraft....
two rows top and bottoms both port and starboard... his diagram only has five shuttles.
 
It is interesting to compare the nuEnterprise to the aircraft carrier Enterprise, but the carrier isn't exactly the largest vessel around. Even the Queen Mary 2 is longer! Why not compare it to a supertanker like the Knock Nevis, which is 458 m? A 300-m starship was big in 1966, but not anymore. A comparison to the Knock Nevis, built in 1979, would put the nuEnterprise in a more valid context.

That's not the Enterprise that's the USS Gerald Ford which is the newest class of aircraft carrier that will be launched in I believe 2015...

Then your comparison is even more misleading.

We're all used to seeing the TOS Enterprise next to the CVN-65 Enterprise. But the USS Gerald R. Ford is shorter than the CVN-65 Enterprise. The Gerald R. Ford is 333 meters, and the Enterprise is 342 meters.

Anyway, here, you can use this for the Knock Nevis:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/jahre-viking-line.gif

What is misleading about comparing the ship to a real world object? Why does everyone on this board assume some sort of agenda when anyone posts something on here. I compared the ship to a real world ship to show the scale of these things..that's it. Someone asked me to make up those charts, I did, and I shared them with this board too. If you want me to scale the ship against other real world objects I can get to that as well.
 
More size photos comparisons for you guys. These ships are insanely large guys..
First 366 meter ship compared to some of the world's tallest buildings..The ship is considerably large compared to the buildings and even taller than some
366mbuild-1.jpg

Now the 725 meter ship...
725mbuild-1.jpg

That strange looking graphic over the buildings is actually my favorite college football teams home stadium (yeah I know they were horrible last year) University of Michigan Wolverines. This stadium seats about 105,000 people every Saturday afternoon during football season...
bighouse.jpg
 
That's not the Enterprise that's the USS Gerald Ford which is the newest class of aircraft carrier that will be launched in I believe 2015...

Then your comparison is even more misleading.

We're all used to seeing the TOS Enterprise next to the CVN-65 Enterprise. But the USS Gerald R. Ford is shorter than the CVN-65 Enterprise. The Gerald R. Ford is 333 meters, and the Enterprise is 342 meters.

Anyway, here, you can use this for the Knock Nevis:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/jahre-viking-line.gif

What is misleading about comparing the ship to a real world object? Why does everyone on this board assume some sort of agenda when anyone posts something on here.

I certainly didn't say the illustration was deliberately misleading.

I meant that it is misleading simply because many here were thinking of this well-known chart...

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/uss-enterprise-space-cruiser-sheet-2.jpg

... based on the CVA-65 in The Making of Star Trek -- it is the foundation of all such comparisons.
 
Then your comparison is even more misleading.

We're all used to seeing the TOS Enterprise next to the CVN-65 Enterprise. But the USS Gerald R. Ford is shorter than the CVN-65 Enterprise. The Gerald R. Ford is 333 meters, and the Enterprise is 342 meters.

Anyway, here, you can use this for the Knock Nevis:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/jahre-viking-line.gif

What is misleading about comparing the ship to a real world object? Why does everyone on this board assume some sort of agenda when anyone posts something on here.

I certainly didn't say the illustration was deliberately misleading.

I meant that it is misleading simply because many here were thinking of this well-known chart...

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/uss-enterprise-space-cruiser-sheet-2.jpg

... based on the CVA-65 in The Making of Star Trek -- it is the foundation of all such comparisons.

Oh okay makes sense:) I wasn't even thinking about that chart. Anyways, no biggie. Per your suggestion, the Knock Nevis at 458 meters compared to the 366 meter Enterprise and the 725 meter Enterprise...
bigassshipb.jpg

enterpriselineagetanker.jpg
 
It's also misleading because the shuttlebay has four rows of seven shuttlecraft....
two rows top and bottoms both port and starboard... his diagram only has five shuttles.

1) where are you getting 7 shuttles/row?

2) it's a dorsal shot...OF COURSE you can't see the top row (or more accurately, the bottom row as the two are one atop the other)

3) if you add two more per side, all that does is FURTHER prove the 333m version is too small.
 
I hope they have pretty strong nacelle struts on that 725 meter ship!
silly.jpg

burj_dubai.jpg

enterprisetowers.jpg

Well,remember the building doesn't need to travel faster than light....


To be fair,we should probably compare the Enterprise with the skyscrapers of the 23rd century .A modern day 747 Aircraft is bigger than many buildings from the 1800s .
 

See? That makes a considerable difference.

Now which size looks like the most advanced starship from 200 years in the future?

Of course I see, I made the chart;) I see the point you are trying to make, but its really lost on me, because I don't care. I put the chart up there for both sizes that ILM said they made...366 meters and 725 meters...there is no debate. They said they scaled the ship to 366 meters and then scaled it up to 725 meters. What we think looks more advanced or what looks right to us does not matter. This is what they said they did. If you remember back in this thread I estimated the ships size to be around 470 meters before, but they said it was neither of those, so really, there is no point to be made, I just put up what they said they did.
 
They first made it ~300 meters. And so it was. Then, they made it ~700 meters. And so it is. Until they change it, I don't see why people should try to convince other people the damn thing is something it's not.
 
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. :techman:

One of the Three laws of motion... By Sir Issac Newton
Conservation of Mass-Energy:

The total energy in a closed or isolated system is constant, no matter what happens. Another law stated that the mass in an isolated system is constant. When Einstein discovered the relationship E=mc2 (in other words that mass was a manifestation of energy) the law was said to refer to the conservation of mass-energy. The total of both mass and energy is retained, although some may change forms. The ultimate example of this is a nuclear explosion, where mass transforms into energy.


Isaac Newton was born on 4 January 1643... BTW the law hasn't changed much since then, it was only refined more by Einstein..
 
All this means is that now the Enterprise is a gigantic fortress, invunerable to everything except VGER sized threats.

Black holes, meh. Our giant ship laughs at them. HAHAHAHA!

The Hangar in TOS was too big to fit in a 947 foot ship. And the Delta Flyer didn't fit into the VGR's hangar doors, it just sort of magically appeared inside the ship. So as great as all the eyeballing of the hangar is, it doesn't nail them down to a size. What with the ship not being real. If they go with the bigger size they'll be more accurate than Trek sometimes was in the past though.
 
WRONG. Neither transporters NOR replicatos operate as you describe. They break down EXISTING matter, manipulate it, and reassemble it.

For the record:
Transporters convert matter into energy (which they can manipulate) and back again.
Replicators are capable of the same process, only it's primarily used when recycling and NOT when people decide to replicate a meal or an object.
Replicators need 2 thins: Energy, and the formula composition of an object a person wants to create ... because the replicators use a pre-existing formula to convert energy into matter by restructuring it as they want to (as previously explained, they can manipulate the energy to this extent) ... clearly established in Voyager and TNG.
Transporters merely work with pre-existing matter (humanoids or objects) which is why they were invented first and replicators second.

This is why replicators have been usually portrayed as types of systems that need a lot of power (which was initially a problem for Voyager, and later on they discovered a way to triple their efficiency and feed 500 people a day using 50% less power compared to what they they were using before ... episode 'Void' btw ... meaning that this would translate into a minute energy use as far as replicators are concerned when the ship exited the void and continued to provide food for measly 150 people).
In TOS ... they had food synthesizers ... those were restructuring for example recycled matter into basic components and restructuring them into a meal.
Oh ... and they had this technology from since the NX-01 (which was roughly 120 years before the TOS events took place).

Holodecks need energy to materialize forcefields and environments ... not pre-existing matter.
Have you been WATCHING the show?

Still doesn't explain WHERE the raw stocks of materials are stored.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but star-ships usually come equipped with relatively large cargo-bays, which are used to store supplies.
And again, their storage techniques and technology is much more efficient and advanced compared to what we can do today.

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.
You must have smacked your head because in Trek, crews usually maintain their technology and equipment.

Also ... to answer the question of where all the power is coming from.
There is that big glowing object in every engineering section of a star-ship that spans several decks.
It's called the WARP CORE.
Main source of energy for ALL ship systems, although they usually use auxiliary impulse reactors (or maybe even fusion reactors) to power all systems in the absence of the core, or when the core is damaged, being upgraded of simply turned off.

Well documented in the show on screen btw ... doesn't get more canon that that.

Oh one more thing ...
We were able to transport an atom from one location to the other years ago.
It may not be the same feat as transporting people, but at least it proves it can be done at least with non living objects and we are making small steps.

Theories are being done into research of FTL travel, and the concept of food/objects syntezisers is becoming slowly a reality (there was an intel show-reel recently that portrayed on what they are able to do with restructure of matter on a nano scale for example ... and you have printers that are almost a decade old that can create a full 3d object that was constructed in programs such as 3d studio Max and Maya).
It may not be true replicator technology, but we are getting there.

To call Trek technology as 'magic' when some of it has been realized in real life in the 21st century is what I would call 'being in denial'.

But if you want to continue to drone about you perspective, you are perfectly willing to do so.
I'm not going to stop you.

On an aside I doubt we will ever be able to transport people. It would be nice, but I think that is one of the fantasy elements of Star Trek. Not because we couldn't send the BODY to any place were dicided to transport it, but you are breaking down the body into energy, what about the mind, I don't mean the MEAT of the Brain. I mean the mind, the soul, the etheral thing that makes a creature alive. I just don't think we could do it with ANY living thing.
 
More size photos comparisons for you guys. These ships are insanely large guys..
First 366 meter ship compared to some of the world's tallest buildings..The ship is considerably large compared to the buildings and even taller than some
366mbuild-1.jpg

Now the 725 meter ship...
725mbuild-1.jpg

That strange looking graphic over the buildings is actually my favorite college football teams home stadium (yeah I know they were horrible last year) University of Michigan Wolverines. This stadium seats about 105,000 people every Saturday afternoon during football season...
bighouse.jpg
HOLY CRAP!:eek: in comparison the NU-E if it is at the 700 m range is insanely HUGE! WERE talking BABYLON 5 & STAR WARS HUGE!
 
HOLY CRAP!:eek: in comparison the NU-E if it is at the 700 m range is insanely HUGE! WERE talking BABYLON 5 & STAR WARS HUGE!

Huge? Pff, please. My manhood is longer then that.

If it were the 10000 kilometers, like the Halo mothership, then it would be big.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top