Starship Size Argument™ thread

[F. King Daniel]

First, that's a ridiculous analogy. Second, your "evidence" doesn't even provide a consistent scale size. The ship grows and shrinks depending on how they decide to match interior to exterior. How is that reliable? It was an image superposition where one image (ship) was arbitrarily scaled up so the second image (people / shuttles) would fit in and the composite would "look cool."

Anyway, Kirk's personal escape pod is seen being ejected from one of these hatches. No way that thing was 5m in diameter. Does that "evidence" get thrown out?

Look closer. The hatch is only half the size of it's outer collar... and you might want to have a look in those windows too - they're about the size of the bridge one. See inside?

I really don't care what artists think the size is, based on their need to make something "look cool."

Well in that case you're screwed, since the Enterprise was designed to look cool - in 1964. Every single ship in Star Trek's 46 year history has been designed with visuals first and foremost in mind.

That's why there's a term "artistic license", which means to stretch the truth because you can.

I match the form with the function. The Enterprise shouldn't have 5m diameter hatches. Who thought of that? Can you explain what they're for? It makes no sense for the ship to be over 200m tall (as high as a 70 storey building). etc... etc... etc... Shall I repeat: THOSE DIMENSIONS MAKE NO SENSE.

Form with function as it relates to Star Trek? Shouldn't you be trying to convince me the Enterprise is the shape of a rocket, or perhaps spherical? What sense does the Enterprise's shape make in the first place? What sense was putting the bridge on the very top level, completely vulnerable?

And how do you define "making sense" with regard to a fictitious spaceship? It's all make-believe. The old Enterprise can be 289m while this one can be several times bigger with no trouble at all. Remember that insanely huge mushroom-shaped spacedock in the classic movies? If Starfleet can build them, ships like the USS Enterprise and the USS Vengeance are nothing in comparison. There is NO in-universe reason why they can't be the sizes ILM claim, and no real-life reason, either.

I'll say again, you're arguing what you want the ship to be and not what it actually is in the film.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If your "research" reveals inconsistencies with your assumptions, then "logic" dictates you should throw out your assumptions. A starship that is different sizes depending on which window or door you look through suggests the problem is looking in from the outside.

Your "evidence" amounts to measuring inaccurate and low resolution fan art, and obsolete assumptions based on pre-reboot Trek.

 

[Franklin]

No one painted themselves into a corner. ILM set it at 2397.75 when they scaled up the ship. That has become the official length, size of windows and such notwithstanding.

The old "Enterprise Tour" website associated with the first movie had the specs:
-- Mass: 495,000 metric tonnes.
-- Length: 2500 feet (only 103 feet from 2397, maybe someone rounded up, but it's not 1200 feet, either).
-- Saucer diameter: 1100 feet.
-- Ship height: 625 feet (about 60 stories).
-- In a sentimental nod to reality, it said the ship's designer was W. Matthew Jefferies.
-- I believe the site also offered a tour of parts of the Enterprise not shown in the movie.

 

[137th Gebirg]

"There" "are" "a" "lot" "of" "quotes" "flying" "about".

 

[Franklin]

How about this: instead of using rulers and pictures and approximate scales, just Google "size of the enterprise 2009" or something like that and you'll find several links that discuss the scaling up of the ship from its length of about 1200 feet early in production to what its length became (2397 feet). There's no confusion about it. The story is widely known. Making a case for the ship being smaller is barking up the wrong tree, beating a dead horse, getting the wrong end of the stick, and all that.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Your "evidence" amounts to measuring inaccurate and low resolution fan art, and obsolete assumptions based on pre-reboot Trek.

You gave me a link to the "correct" (higher resolution) version, whose attributes are the exact same size.

-- Length: 2500 feet (only 103 feet from 2397, maybe someone rounded up, but it's not 1200 feet, either).

So there's still no internal consistency. Got it. How can I argue with a measurement that's never the same twice?

 

[greenlight]

I remember watching the movie in 2009 and it's going along, and I'm focusing on the ship, and thinking about all the things I do and don't like about the redesign, and I guess it looks okay and then the shuttle bay doors open and HOLY CRAP! WHAT THE...??!? Just how big is this thing? And honestly, the very next thing that popped into my head was this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTwz-mlJPL0

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I remember watching the movie in 2009 and it's going along, and I'm focusing on the ship, and thinking about all the things I do and don't like about the redesign, and I guess it looks okay and then the shuttle bay doors open and HOLY CRAP! WHAT THE...??!? Just how big is this thing? And honestly, the very next thing that popped into my head was this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTwz-mlJPL0

Bingo!

 

[Franklin]

Your "evidence" amounts to measuring inaccurate and low resolution fan art, and obsolete assumptions based on pre-reboot Trek.

You gave me a link to the "correct" (higher resolution) version, whose attributes are the exact same size.

-- Length: 2500 feet (only 103 feet from 2397, maybe someone rounded up, but it's not 1200 feet, either).

So there's still no internal consistency. Got it. How can I argue with a measurement that's never the same twice?

Once it was established in production, it's been consistent. I posted some of this before, but:
-- The length of the Enterprise (2397.75 feet) is given in the 2009 Blu-ray movie feature piece "Starships".
-- The same final size is given in the book "Star Trek -- The Art of the Film".
-- According to Memory Alpha, Bob Plant of Round 2 Models gives the same length.
-- ILM verifies it (they're the ones who scaled it up in the first place).
-- The most conclusive thing is the Polar Lights Enteprise is 11.5 inches long. It says it's 1/2500 scale on the box. Take 2397 feet times 12 to get inches and divide that by 2500 and you get 11.5 inches. A 1/2500 scale model of a 1200 foot ship would be only 5.75 inches long.

The established size is 2397.75 whether it makes sense or not.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Your "evidence" amounts to measuring inaccurate and low resolution fan art, and obsolete assumptions based on pre-reboot Trek.

You gave me a link to the "correct" (higher resolution) version, whose attributes are the exact same size.

Which are still based on false assumptions. The bridge window is an absolute. The shuttles and shuttlebay are absolute. What we've seen of the ship's interior is absolute. None of which jibes with the numbers you came up with. None of which indicate a ship the size of the TOS or TMP Enterprises.

-- Length: 2500 feet (only 103 feet from 2397, maybe someone rounded up, but it's not 1200 feet, either).

So there's still no internal consistency. Got it. How can I argue with a measurement that's never the same twice?

How can you argue it's the same size as the old Enterprise when there is so much overwhelming evidence that it's significantly larger? There comes a point when you're ignoring every single VFX shot - and you are there.

 

[BillJ]

The Enterprise is a vehicle of the imagination not a real starship. Does it's size in relation to other fantasy starships really matter?

 

[Franklin]

The Enterprise is a vehicle of the imagination not a real starship. Does it's size in relation to other fantasy starships really matter?

Yes. ( )

 

[Locutus of Bored]

The Enterprise is a vehicle of the imagination not a real starship.

 

[BillJ]

The Enterprise is a vehicle of the imagination not a real starship.

 

[trevanian]

The Enterprise is a vehicle of the imagination not a real starship. Does it's size in relation to other fantasy starships really matter?

Probably at least as much as the size of the flying monkeys in OZ, or the size of the firebelcher in GODZILLA. Benchmarks of credibility enhance an enterprise rather than detract from it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The Enterprise is a vehicle of the imagination not a real starship. Does it's size in relation to other fantasy starships really matter?

What annoys me is the arrogance of fanboys who insist they know better than the people who made the movie. The people who can see the enourmous engine room and go, "that's a mistake" because it wouldn't fit in the 1966 or 1979 versions of the Enterprise, despite those who made this one saying for four years now that they made it much bigger.

Probably at least as much as the size of the flying monkeys in OZ, or the size of the firebelcher in GODZILLA. Benchmarks of credibility enhance an enterprise rather than detract from it.

But too many are confusing "benchmark of credibility" with "the way it used to be."

Can anyone give me one good reason why the new Enterprise can't be 700+ meters long? I've heard "It doesn't make sense." but absolutely no reasoning why beyond it being a change from the old. The windows are too big? One look at the ship and you see they're the same size as the one on the bridge. Is that too big? Does one of Roddenberry's rules stipulate a standard window size for Federation starships? The hatches are too big? I posted pictures showing that wasn't the case. Too many decks? Based on what??

In-universe and out of universe, there is NO reason why they can't have resized the Enterprise, or build even bigger starships like the Vengeance. None at all.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Can anyone give me one good reason why the new Enterprise can't be 700+ meters long? I've heard "It doesn't make sense."

If it's 700+ meters long, how do you get rid of all the tribbles? It took nearly forever on the original one, I don't envy those who would be doing the job on the new one.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^NuTrek will have those TAS-sized giant tribbles, keeping the tribble/Enterprise ratio intact.

 

[DaveyNY]

^NuTrek will have those TAS-sized giant tribbles, keeping the tribble/Enterprise ratio intact.

Keenser would probably eat most of them anyway.

 

[PopBoy]

Didnt know there is such a large amount of size queens here ;-) Don't shoot me down, but does it really matter how big it is? Its what you do with that counts...