The space shuttle is 37m long. The original Enterprise is about 300m long. That's 8 space shuttle lengths, not 2-3. In the usual vernacular, the Enterprise is "3 football fields" in length.
Starship Size Argument™ thread
- Thread starter WarpFactorZ
- Start date
- Status
The space shuttle is 37m long. The original Enterprise is about 300m long. That's 8 space shuttle lengths, not 2-3. In the usual vernacular, the Enterprise is "3 football fields" in length.
TheCutestofBorg
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster
Not by the size of the windows and what is shown on screen. The Engineering hull is maybe twice the size of a nuclear sub. And the saucer section is maybe about the same size. By the time they cram in ships systems and everything needed to run the ship there cannot be much room left. And if you go by the 1st Abrhams movie Star Trek 2/3rds of the engineering hull is a shuttle bay that looks to be at most 30-40 feet high...
Not by the size of the windows and what is shown on screen. The Engineering hull is maybe twice the size of a nuclear sub. And the saucer section is maybe about the same size. By the time they cram in ships systems and everything needed to run the ship there cannot be much room left. And if you go by the 1st Abrhams movie Star Trek 2/3rds of the engineering hull is a shuttle bay that looks to be at most 30-40 feet high...
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster
How can you tell? Do subs have windows? Besides, Wiki gives the Ohio class dimensions as 170m x 13m. The dimensions given for the Enterprise's nacelles are almost identical. The hull is therefore much bigger.
You're also considering only linear size, not volume. Taken as a cylinder, it's volume would be 22,500 cubic metres. The engineering hull is about 100m long and 40m across. The volume of the corresponding cylinder is 125,600 cubic metres -- 5.5 times as big.
(and it's 'Abrams', not 'Abrhams')
How can you tell? Do subs have windows? Besides, Wiki gives the Ohio class dimensions as 170m x 13m. The dimensions given for the Enterprise's nacelles are almost identical. The hull is therefore much bigger.
You're also considering only linear size, not volume. Taken as a cylinder, it's volume would be 22,500 cubic metres. The engineering hull is about 100m long and 40m across. The volume of the corresponding cylinder is 125,600 cubic metres -- 5.5 times as big.
Since we don't know anything about the "size" of things required to run a starship, it's hard to judge this statement.
I try not to.
(and it's 'Abrams', not 'Abrhams')
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWrsEL0TyPk[/YT]
The specs say she's 23 stories tall and 289 meters from end to end.
This Enterprise is a whopping 725 meters in length.
Here's a look inside the old TV series Enterprise:
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWrsEL0TyPk[/YT]
The specs say she's 23 stories tall and 289 meters from end to end.
Each of the shuttlecraft in Abrams' first movie is 40 feet long. And there were a LOT of them parked in there. That Enterprise is a lot bigger than the original:
This Enterprise is a whopping 725 meters in length.
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster
King: why do you always compare 2009 Enterprise pics with 1966 Enterprise pics? You immediately handicap the latter by its limited budget, special effects, and the fact the production crew could care less whether the model matched the sets. Why not take pics from the movies where the viewscreen is bigger, the shuttle bay / cargo section is bigger, engineering is bigger, etc...?
King: why do you always compare 2009 Enterprise pics with 1966 Enterprise pics? You immediately handicap the latter by its limited budget, special effects, and the fact the production crew could care less whether the model matched the sets. Why not take pics from the movies where the viewscreen is bigger, the shuttle bay / cargo section is bigger, engineering is bigger, etc...?
OK, thanks!
Concerning the shuttle bay comparisons in KD img collection, are those beams, apparently holding up the ceiling really necessary?
They cause what could have been a decent new shuttle bay design appear clumsy and cluttered. IMO, of course.
They cause what could have been a decent new shuttle bay design appear clumsy and cluttered. IMO, of course.
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster
Oh come on, it wouldn't kill you to do minimal research. How can you complain about this stuff without knowing anything about it?
The TMP Enterprise was built to a scale about sixty feet longer than the TOS ship. The bridge set is about four feet wider in diameter than the set used on television. Yes, the main viewer is built to a wider aspect ratio than the TV version, but it's not substantially larger.
IOW, he could substitute pictures of the movie ship for the pictures of the TOS ship and it would make no significant difference. He's not "handicapping" anything.
Oh come on, it wouldn't kill you to do minimal research. How can you complain about this stuff without knowing anything about it?
The TMP Enterprise was built to a scale about sixty feet longer than the TOS ship. The bridge set is about four feet wider in diameter than the set used on television. Yes, the main viewer is built to a wider aspect ratio than the TV version, but it's not substantially larger.
IOW, he could substitute pictures of the movie ship for the pictures of the TOS ship and it would make no significant difference. He's not "handicapping" anything.
Browsing through the archives, I found the following thread:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=119751&page=13
Didn't read through the whole thing, but based on those images, I could fit a big fucking "brewery" in that space -- particularly if the entire secondary hull is devoted to engineering + shuttle bay.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=119751&page=13
Didn't read through the whole thing, but based on those images, I could fit a big fucking "brewery" in that space -- particularly if the entire secondary hull is devoted to engineering + shuttle bay.
Hmmm. Only 12 posts in this thread.
I guess the odometer for this thread finally rolled over.
Next up is the Battlestar Vengeance that's five miles long.
Or for you SW fans: "That's no moon. It's a starship."
I guess the odometer for this thread finally rolled over.
Next up is the Battlestar Vengeance that's five miles long.
Or for you SW fans: "That's no moon. It's a starship."
The "actual" Enterprise? No, the only spaceship Enterprise is exactly 1 space shuttle in size.
Take a moment to think about what you just said.
(hint: it's more like 21 space shuttles in length)
TheCutestofBorg
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Huh, I did not realize that a comment I made on another thread would spark off in a debate on a entirely new thread.
I am glad to see a larger federation ship coming up in this movie. As I said in the other thread, I have never liked the small size of the Enterprise as depicted in the show and movies. I do think the Enterprise itself should be much closer to what the Vengeance is shown as being. I realize that peoples opinions may vary.
I am glad to see a larger federation ship coming up in this movie. As I said in the other thread, I have never liked the small size of the Enterprise as depicted in the show and movies. I do think the Enterprise itself should be much closer to what the Vengeance is shown as being. I realize that peoples opinions may vary.
[montypython] This is not an argument! It is just contradiction! [/montypython]
So, anyway --
Put me down for the 2200 foot range based on a scaling I did based on the approximate height of the viewscreen on the bridge from the outside based on the size of a person seen inside the bridge standing next to the viewscreen. I performed the measurements three times to be sure. The said person (Chris Pine) is 73 inches tall. Of course, I didn't factor in the heal size of his shoes and how his relative size compared to the viewscreen/window would be affected by how far he was standing from it, but that's why it's an estimate. At any rate, I'm saying the Enterprise is 2200 feet long until Abrams decides it isn't or he changes the heights of his actors. But if anyone can tell me the size of the heals on Pine's boots (1 inch? less?) I could give a better estimate.
G
Gonzo
Guest
I also am happy with the size of the ships in the new timeline, I could have lived with them the same as in TOS but they also always felt too small to me as well.
In TOS, the 289 M Enterprise was deemed large enough to be called a 'City in space' - enough space for 400 crew members to live on board in a civilised environment.
Unfortunately TNG era came through and subsequently everything set before that was down graded (from switch gear to carpet and to captains quarter sizes)
What made me laugh was in ST6 TUC, where you had the Excelsior, the largest ship in Starfleet and the captain's quarters was smaller than a junior officer's wash room from the TNG era.
Unfortunately TNG era came through and subsequently everything set before that was down graded (from switch gear to carpet and to captains quarter sizes)
What made me laugh was in ST6 TUC, where you had the Excelsior, the largest ship in Starfleet and the captain's quarters was smaller than a junior officer's wash room from the TNG era.
Well, it was deemed a "city in space" by a clever advertising copy writer - not because it met any other criteria for the description. I remember reading that blurb on the back of Blish's first collection of paperback adaptations for Bantam press, back in 1966, and thinking it was a wild exaggeration.
I wonder if it was actually a cute call-out to Blish's own Cities In Flight.
I wonder if it was actually a cute call-out to Blish's own Cities In Flight.
- Status
Similar threads
