He'd probably ignore it because as you said non-canon haha.
He has his own page on what he considers canon to be, I have not read it in a while but I think he'd probably ignore the PM cutaway as well.
Starship Size Argument™ thread
- Thread starter WarpFactorZ
- Start date
- Status
He'd probably ignore it because as you said non-canon haha.
He has his own page on what he considers canon to be, I have not read it in a while but I think he'd probably ignore the PM cutaway as well.
Their supposition itself isn't even necessarily inconsistent with with there being differences before 2233. "An entire new chain of events that cannot be anticipated" means a different future, and a different future can give rise to a different past as readily as the reverse. The numerous and varied temporal incursions—of which we know Kirk Prime alone was guilty in greater number than any other single individual known to the Department of Temporal Investigations at the time of "Trials And Tribble-ations" (DS9)—from the Prime Timeline's future that shaped its past won't necessarily happen under exactly the same circumstances and may not have the same outcomes, if they happen at all. (For example, the ones of TOS and TVH will certainly be at least somewhat different, there already having been a different NCC-1701 embarking on her five-year mission at a different time and being destroyed and replaced by a different Enterprise-A under different circumstances.) And even if their effect remains in place, as does Nero's, there will undoubtedly be a new set of additional ones from this timeline. As Simon Pegg put it, this potentially creates "an entirely new reality in all directions, top to bottom, from the Big Bang to the end of everything." Alternate timeline, parallel reality, same difference.
That's the ONLY factor, really.
Not, strictly speaking, beyond what TOS tech would have evolved into if it had actually progressed from what we saw in ST: Enterprise, but certainly beyond what anyone in the 1960s would have imagined Starfleet being capable of and/or been able to even think of depicting with the technology of the time.
As it stands, Yorktown is less a "giant space station pretending to be a city" so much as a "giant city pretending to be a space station." It's basically a spaceborn metropolis whose design reflects aesthetics and style at least as much as function; like a lot of modern skyscrapers in major cities, it's supposed to be as much a work of art as it is a structure and environment.
In universe explanation: it probably has more to do with the Xindi War and the examination of Sphere Builder technology. 22nd Century Earth had WAY more contact with advanced alien technology than TOS would suggest, so the leap in technology would follow naturally from that.
Real explanation: The Federation is a conglomeration of species that have been traveling in space for centuries, and some were colonizing the galaxy when humans were just discovering electricity. The combined scientific and industrial prowess of an organization like the Federation should be producing things like Yorktown on a pretty regular basis, so really, the only surprising thing about Yorktown is the fact that we don't see things like it more often.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's because the majority of the evidence points towards smaller Enterprise? I mean, what exactly do Bigenprise fans have? A shuttlebay, and... that's about it, I think.
Sure, it's hard to argue with evidence like this, but it's equally hard to argue with stuff like exposed saucer corridors in Into Darkness, for example.
Yup.
It doesn't.
The bridge, the saucer windows, the presence of a SECONDARY shuttlebay in STID, and the production team flat out SAYING that it's a bigger ship.
There are two and only two points that might actually support the ship being: the deliberately off-scale viewing at the Riverside Shipyards, and the position (though not the SIZE) of the windows along the saucer. All other supporting arguments boil down to "But I don't WANT it to be bigger!!"
You mean the exposed saucer corridors that show a CONSIDERABLE gap between decks and would only fit a 300 meter hull for a crew the size of Keenser?
wait, is this thread still alive? Haven't you guys settled yet on 725 meters? Because every kid knows... That's the size.
Well... not much i guess... just 1)the bridge window suggesting how small the bridge is compared to rest of the ship, 2)the artium dome behind the bridge suggesting how much space exists at the part of the saucer that houses the bridge, 3)the artium showing a 15 decks high saucer, 4)the huge windows compared to the tiny crewmen at the edge of the saucer suggesting at least 4 decks high saucer at its edge, 5)the considerable space above the first damaged deck that easily fits an additional deck, 6)the considerable space below the second damaged deck that easily fits an additional deck, 7)the space between the two damaged decks, 8)the gigantic primary engineering that houses the warp core, 9)the gigantic secondary engineering that houses the matter/anti-matter chambers, 10)the gigantic shuttlebay that houses multiple 18m shuttles, 11)the gigantic brewery that houses the comms, 12)but most importantly the official size comparison charts that have been released by the actual designers of the nuEnterprise!!!
Mine's prettier:If everyone is happy to accept 725 m then, the size chart will look something like this:
One last observation about this scale, is that the Klingon warbirds seen in the simulator would perhaps be the size of the mayflower, and therefore bigger than the original Enterprise.
That's awesome.
So basically the new Enterprise is about the same size as the Enterprise-E when you take away the respective engines and struts. Doesn't seem outrageously big. The Vengeance is, but it was supposed to be stupidly big.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Yeah the ship looks fine size wise, the Vengeance was meant to be huge (same size as a 24th century Prime Romulan Warbird).
I am hoping they have incorporated some of the Vengeance technology into the ship.
Ever since the 2009 movie came out, I wondered how big the nuE was. I've been building models since the original ERTL a long time ago, and I just wanted to know how this new E fit with the original series.
Then I read a while back that the nuE was 700+ meters long. Um, no. Visual evidence doesn't match. You can't have two decks at the end of the saucer and still have the whole ship scaled up. The geometry doesn't match. Shuttlecrafts? Budgineering? All visual mistakes IMO.
Then Beyond came out and there's one scene which almost nails the 366m debate once and for all:
So, even though the "official" length is 700+ meters long, I just think it's a mistake. It's not like Trek isn't full of inconsistencies.
The way I see it, they change the scale (as others have said here) to fit the narrative of the story.
Then I read a while back that the nuE was 700+ meters long. Um, no. Visual evidence doesn't match. You can't have two decks at the end of the saucer and still have the whole ship scaled up. The geometry doesn't match. Shuttlecrafts? Budgineering? All visual mistakes IMO.
Then Beyond came out and there's one scene which almost nails the 366m debate once and for all:
When Kirk and Chekov slide down the saucer, their size compared to the saucer and the distance traveled feels more like 366 than 700+
So, even though the "official" length is 700+ meters long, I just think it's a mistake. It's not like Trek isn't full of inconsistencies.
The way I see it, they change the scale (as others have said here) to fit the narrative of the story.
*deep breaths*
*grits teeth*
*waits for the rage to die down*
*grits teeth*
*waits for the rage to die down*
Not even three pages ago we already covered that:
Although I think Daniel's project also demonstrates that the ship doesn't have a "layer cake" design like we would expect and the corridors are pressurized tubes connecting modules within the saucer that are also habitable; there's alot of space BETWEEN them that is filled with machinery, electronics, and (as we see in the wreckage scene) thruster housings and fuel tanks.The Ryan Church concept art was designed at 366 meters. The ILM CG model was designed much larger. Just look at the bridge window, which would take up the entire height of the dome ifthe ship were the same size as the last one.
And as said a million times, the windows in ID match the deck heights. Here are the set blueprints superimposed over the ship.
As it stands, the thruster that Kirk shoots with a phaser (right before he quite literally flips his shit) is large enough that it wouldn't even FIT into a 170m saucer module.
They were done that way DELIBERATELY. Calling that a "mistake" assumes the ship was MEANT to be smaller at that stage, which is just plain silly.
"Feels like"
Yes, that's exactly what they did. ONCE. Before the first movie even started and before the final model was ever approved. Hell, even before they changed the warp nacelles from red to blue and added the aztec pattern on the hull, they had settled on the 750m length for the ship.
And they never actually changed it back.
Last edited:
Like deck 78 in Star Trek V?
Ever since the 2009 movie came out, I wondered how big the nuE was. I've been building models since the original ERTL a long time ago, and I just wanted to know how this new E fit with the original series.
Then I read a while back that the nuE was 700+ meters long. Um, no. Visual evidence doesn't match. You can't have two decks at the end of the saucer and still have the whole ship scaled up. The geometry doesn't match. Shuttlecrafts? Budgineering? All visual mistakes IMO.
Then Beyond came out and there's one scene which almost nails the 366m debate once and for all:
When Kirk and Chekov slide down the saucer, their size compared to the saucer and the distance traveled feels more like 366 than 700+
So, even though the "official" length is 700+ meters long, I just think it's a mistake. It's not like Trek isn't full of inconsistencies.
The way I see it, they change the scale (as others have said here) to fit the narrative of the story.
You're definitely free to see it however you want. You just won't have very many people agreeing with your stance.
No, like the torpedo launchers in "Wrath of Khan." The producers went out of their way to build that set and the torpedo casings that went with them; ergo, the idea of a physical torpedo casing isn't a mistake, it's a deliberate choice.
78 decks in a turboshaft is just a comedic gag gone wrong.
G
Gonzo
Guest
From your post I have come to the following conclusion.Ever since the 2009 movie came out, I wondered how big the nuE was. I've been building models since the original ERTL a long time ago, and I just wanted to know how this new E fit with the original series.
Then I read a while back that the nuE was 700+ meters long. Um, no. Visual evidence doesn't match. You can't have two decks at the end of the saucer and still have the whole ship scaled up. The geometry doesn't match. Shuttlecrafts? Budgineering? All visual mistakes IMO.
Then Beyond came out and there's one scene which almost nails the 366m debate once and for all:
When Kirk and Chekov slide down the saucer, their size compared to the saucer and the distance traveled feels more like 366 than 700+
So, even though the "official" length is 700+ meters long, I just think it's a mistake. It's not like Trek isn't full of inconsistencies.
The way I see it, they change the scale (as others have said here) to fit the narrative of the story.
You don't like that the ship is 725m.
My response is.
There is nothing you can do about it.
- Status
Similar threads
