Starships larger than heavy cruisers?

[Vance]

I enjoy it too - I just don't lose sight of the foundation those details are built on, and thus have a more flexible approach to new artists and producers taking things in a slightly different direction.

No no no. You don't get to play the moral high-ground now. You put the NuEnterprise to a 'realistic' standard and were called on it, and that's pretty much the end of it.

We know, by Abrams own admission, that he deliberately ignored the tech for the movie, ships, etc. In fact, he was pretty insulting about it. We also know that the official artists used 'meters' and 'feet' interchangeably as if they were the same thing. So, yes, talking about the technical details on the NuEnterprise is a fruitless endeavor, much more so than the original series and some of the later shows, certainly.

Saying "Your Star Trek Sucks Too" is no defense.

 

[F. King Daniel]

All I said was that the interiors of the new Enterpise fit inside a 725m frame, I didn't comment on ships' development or JJ's "nacelles monthly" joke.

And, frankly, almost all of Star Trek's ships are fundamentally broken in some way. I accept it all for what it is, and don't hold it to a higher standard than any of the writers and producers have done over the decades. I'm not disrespecting classic Trek at all.

 

[Vance]

All I said was that the interiors of the new Enterpise fit inside a 725m frame, I didn't comment on ships' development or JJ's "nacelles monthly" joke.

But you forget a few things. Saying 'it fits inside a 725m frame' might as well say 'it fits inside a 72,500m frame'. Making it bigger and bigger until 'it fits' is not a technical design choice. It's the worst sort of fudging.

Even more than any other aspect of Trek, the interior and exteriors of the Enterprise were not designed with each-other in mind. Hell, the shuttlebay has three completely different layouts shown within seconds of each other! This is to say nothing of the SFX composites which make ships literally miles in length in one shot, then smaller than a naval frigate in the next.

And, frankly, almost all of Star Trek's ships are fundamentally broken in some way. I accept it all for what it is, and don't hold it to a higher standard than any of the writers and producers have done over the decades. I'm not disrespecting classic Trek at all.

No, you don't. When someone points out, rightly, that you really can't do a technical look at NuTrek because of the stated decisions of its production crew, you get defensive and attack 'everything else Trek'. That is the definition of disrespect.

There's a difference between a known and acceptable error (the TMP rec-deck scene, which ignored the ship's undercut) and deliberately not giving a shit (the clearly-marked brewery complete with cinder-block walls).

NuTrek was the latter, which probably did help the movie overall when compared to the last few TNG-specific movies. But it does make a technical discussion and comparison of the NuEnterprise impossible.

 

[F. King Daniel]

the shuttlebay has three completely different layouts shown within seconds of each other!

Huh? I count one CG shuttlebay and the engineering brewery they walk through on the way to and from.

you get defensive and attack 'everything else Trek'. That is the definition of disrespect.

I'm not getting defensive, I'm not attacking old Trek, and no it's not. You may consider all the ship design goofs that went before "acceptable", but when it comes right down to it the insides don't fit and thus the whole thing is broken. My opinion is that if that's all acceptable, this is too. That's not attacking Trek, that's forgiving it. The storylines in Trek are exactly the same way - it doesn't all add up, but we all pretend it does and enjoy the show.

If you consider the fact that I paint all of Trek with the same brush disrespectful to the bits of it you like, that's your problem.

 

[ATimson]

The NCC-1701 is a very spacious ship, and can be. There's no need to magnify the overall size by 27 to house the same number of crew to make the NuNCC-1701 work.

Did we ever actually get a crew number in the movie? We know the Kelvin had a crew of 800+ (and that's just survivors - we don't know how many died in the attack). Is there any reason to believe that the Enterprise didn't have a crew of a thousand or more?

(Probably not as many as 27 * 430 = 11,610. But I'd be very surprised if it had only the "traditional" 430 crew...)

 

[F. King Daniel]

The NCC-1701 is a very spacious ship, and can be. There's no need to magnify the overall size by 27 to house the same number of crew to make the NuNCC-1701 work.

Did we ever actually get a crew number in the movie? We know the Kelvin had a crew of 800+ (and that's just survivors - we don't know how many died in the attack). Is there any reason to believe that the Enterprise didn't have a crew of a thousand or more?

(Probably not as many as 27 * 430 = 11,610. But I'd be very surprised if it had only the "traditional" 430 crew...)

The "Experience the Enterprise" website gave the crew compliment as 1100. But other than size, weight and crew, it just recycled stuff from Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise that really doesn't fit this version of the ship and in particular made a royal mess of the deck layout.

 

[Vance]

(Probably not as many as 27 * 430 = 11,610. But I'd be very surprised if it had only the "traditional" 430 crew...)

They never specifically mention it. The official website borrowed liberally from Mr Scott's guide and the TNG Technical Manual for numbers... which make no sense, really. And THAT info is refuted on the discs.

 

[EJA]

I don't think there could've been starships on the scale of the Kelvin in the prime universe by the time of ST III. The doors on the spacedock in that movie were designed for ships much, much smaller than that. Something like the Kelvin would never have been able to fit inside.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't think there could've been starships on the scale of the Kelvin in the prime universe by the time of ST III. The doors on the spacedock in that movie were designed for ships much, much smaller than that. Something like the Kelvin would never have been able to fit inside.

So how did the far larger USS Excelsior follow the Enterprise out of that same spacedock in STIII? Or how did the Enterprise-D fit in "11001001"?
There was also a Planet of the Titans Enterprise study model seen as a massive shadow looming in the spacedock background in STIII. 80's fandom called it an Arial-class shuttlecarrier, and gave it a Kelvin sized (2x TOS Enterprise diameter) saucer.

 

[Redshirt214]

Indeed, I would have to concur. However, I've allways held that the TNG & STIII mushrooms were of two seperate classes. Although given, I would have preferred the sceme that had the Ent.D docking at the ventral nodes or some such.See Image:

 

[Timo]

So how did the far larger USS Excelsior follow the Enterprise out of that same spacedock in STIII?

There's no problem width-wise. Height-wise, it would be a tight fit, but if the Excelsior didn't go through completely horizontally but used a nose-up angle, it would again be a (tight) fit.

There was also a Planet of the Titans Enterprise study model seen as a massive shadow looming in the spacedock background in STIII. 80's fandom called it an Ariel-class shuttlecarrier, and gave it a Kelvin sized (2x TOS Enterprise diameter) saucer.

It doesn't appear that big in the movie in comparison with our two better known ships, though.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't think there could've been starships on the scale of the Kelvin in the prime universe by the time of ST III. The doors on the spacedock in that movie were designed for ships much, much smaller than that. Something like the Kelvin would never have been able to fit inside.

Why would it have needed to, when a completely different spacedock facility already exists to accommodate the larger vessels?

For that matter, how many starships even bother to berth at spacedock? The TMP Enterprise launched from an orbiting drydock not even attached to an actual starbase.

 

[Timo]

...Probably because she launched from an assembly and repair dock half-baked. A "civilized" launch might involve a proper terminal instead of a repair facility - say, a commercial aircraft would launch from a tube connecting it to a passenger terminal, rather than from a corrugated-metal hangar across the tarmac.

Military aircraft would of course have little use for "proper terminals". But quite possibly Spacedock is primarily a civilian facility, and only happens to host starships during national emergencies or other special occasions (giving shelter to the wounded E-nil in ST3 and to other wounded ships in ST4, and hosting the Excelsior for PR reasons in both movies), or when the ships take on civilian dignitaries or the like (essentially, Spock in ST5).

The "truth" might lie somewhere in between, with Spacedock being a paramilitary facility just like most of the other UFP services seem to be paramilitary ones run by Starfleet. Ships would only go there when they didn't need repairs, refueling or the like, but did need "civilized" services such as R&R, catering, internal cleaning, crew rotation and so forth.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ But even then, why would you expect a civilian air terminal to have facilities large enough to accommodate a B-52?

As far as shroomdock, we're basically trying to deny the existence of a long range bomber by pointing out that it's too large to land at a civilian airport.

 

[Cicero]

Keep in mind that we only see officer's quarters in TOS, and don't see the crew quarters (which are six-bunked and more like a college dorm's) until TUC. Yes, the carrier Enterprise is cramped and tight, but if you remove 4/5th of the crew and get rid of the fighter hangars and flight deck (but leave the helipad and garages), suddenly it gets a lot more spacious.

The enlisted quarters shown in TUC are more spacious than officers' quarters aboard CVN-65. This is a junior officers' compartment aboard the Midway, absent the additional lockers that would be placed against the bulkhead. On the Enterprise and later supercarriers, these sleep three officers, rather than two.

This is a senior officers' compartment aboard the same ship, seen through a cutaway made for ease of museum viewing. Compare this two-person compartment with Uhura's multi-compartment stateroom (seen in "Elaan of Troyius"). Though she would be classified as a junior officer by modern standards, her quarters are several times the size of those given to two senior officers aboard a modern carrier.

Removing the hangar deck from CVN-65 would noticeably reduce its volume, but less than you might think. Keep in mind, too, that the TOS Enterprise has an internal shuttlebay, shuttle maintenance spaces, and vast, essentially uninhabited nacelles - which CVN-65 does not. The flight deck, despite being the center of carrier operations, is not counted toward its volume, since it's external to the ship's structure. (There is no helipad, by the way. Helicopters operate from the flight deck.)

Space is simply used wastefully aboard the TOS Enterprise, to an extent that its implausible for a ship of its size (that contains everything shown or implied - e.g. quarters for 430 crew - onscreen).

 

[Vance]

The enlisted quarters shown in TUC are more spacious than officers' quarters aboard CVN-65. This is a junior officers' compartment aboard the Midway, absent the additional lockers that would be placed against the bulkhead. On the Enterprise and later supercarriers, these sleep three officers, rather than two.

Believe me, I've been well-lectured about the size of crew quarters, but I was pointing out a couple of things. One, that not all 400 people aboard the NCC-1701 have quarters like Uhura (which itself is explicitly mentioned as one of the nicest on the ship). Second, I was pointing out that you're still dealing with 1/5th the overall crew complement in larger overall living space in a modern carrier.

Removing the hangar deck from CVN-65 would noticeably reduce its volume, but less than you might think. Keep in mind, too, that the TOS Enterprise has an internal shuttlebay, shuttle maintenance spaces, and vast, essentially uninhabited nacelles - which CVN-65 does not. The flight deck, despite being the center of carrier operations, is not counted toward its volume, since it's external to the ship's structure. (There is no helipad, by the way. Helicopters operate from the flight deck.)

I included the garages for the CVN and excluded the nacelles for the comparison. The hangar is a large part of the NCC-1701, of course, but it's not as large the same as the hangar decks on a carrier (talking the stowage and maintenance decks below the flight deck).

Space is simply used wastefully aboard the TOS Enterprise, to an extent that its implausible for a ship of its size (that contains everything shown or implied - e.g. quarters for 430 crew - onscreen).

It's still the people forget how big the saucer really is. It's larger than a typical 10 story apartment block. The saucer alone is more comparable to http://www.housing.purdue.edu/html/Housing/Owen_Hall/Default.htm when you really look at it. And that's allowing for supplies and equipment for living that Owen wouldn't rely upon. (Owen has a H shape which adds in a lot of empty space and also is only four stories tall.)

The NCC-1701 is shown as overly large in places, largely due to the needs of set-construction (particularly in HEIGHT of each set), but it's actually not nearly as bad as a lot of people think. It's a damn big ship, really, and does have plenty of room for a crew of 400. It's even a bit spacious for such duties, particularly if you assume that the saucer has most of the 'living space'.

You really don't need a Super Star Destroyer to house that size of crew, which is what the 'NCC-1701 is too small' is really crying for.

 

[Cicero]

The hangar is a large part of the NCC-1701, of course, but it's not as large the same as the hangar decks on a carrier (talking the stowage and maintenance decks below the flight deck).

Do you mean the hangar deck proper, or the hangar deck in combination with other below-flight deck areas containing aircraft maintenance facilities?

You really don't need a Super Star Destroyer to house that size of crew, which is what the 'NCC-1701 is too small' is really crying for.

I don't think that an increase so drastic is needed for the Enterprise to seem sufficiently large to contain what's been shown within it. I would be much more comfortable with a 390 m ship than a 290 m ship, though.

 

[Vance]

Do you mean the hangar deck proper, or the hangar deck in combination with other below-flight deck areas containing aircraft maintenance facilities?

The whole kaboodle, except enough to maintain the helicopters. I wouldn't include the flattop itself - doesn't really seem fair.

I don't think that an increase so drastic is needed for the Enterprise to seem sufficiently large to contain what's been shown within it. I would be much more comfortable with a 390 m ship than a 290 m ship, though.

Just some of the sets used make this tricky. Redressing Kirk's cabin for each crew member is a big issue, of course. The halls are a bit too big (again, thanks to set requirements), but overall I hadn't seen anything that screams "damn, that's just not right" beyond typical Hollywood Tardising.

I mean, you remember Monica's apartment in Friends? You always have to do SOME error-correction for Hollywood sets.

 

[blssdwlf]

Just for comparison...

The CVN Enterprise has a volume of approx 370,000 m^3. Subtract 152,000 m^3 for hangar. That leaves approx 218,000 m^3 of interior space for man and equipment.

The 947' Enterprise has approx 216,000 m^3 of volume. Subtract 55,684 m^3 for both nacelles and 6655 m^3 for the flight deck and hangar deck and we have 153,661 m^3 left over for man and equipment.

But let's go a little more detailed for the TOS Enterprise. The saucer is 92,656 m^3. Subtract 8,443 m^3 for a spacious impulse engine section and we're left with 84,213 m^3.

We've only seen about 14 specific officers' and guests' quarters for the entire run of TOS. We do know that the TOS Enterprise had onboard lots of enlisted personnel as well. So if we guessed 50 officers quarters and 380 crewman with 6 in a conference room-sized space then we'd only use up 9,646 m^3 of interior space out of 84,213 m^3 for the saucer. (Officer Qtr = 76.9 m^3; Conference Room = 91.6 m^3 - NOTE: both rooms calculated out for a 9' deck.)

Still room left over for the large-sized multi-role theater/gym, phaser control rooms, botany room, etc., as far as I can tell.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ How much of that volume is occupied by corridors and turboshafts?