StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Cpl Kendall wrote:Read Darkstars blog, they've apparently raped his childhood as well.

I ALSO noticed he used the term "monsterprise" and I am pretty sure it DID start here, because somebody used the term, and Stark reported he was putting them on a special list of people who coin terms, and then shortly thereafter Stark started calling the jellyfish the "Spockmobile" which has also caught on.

I have coined the term "Douchebaggification" if people could promote it that would be great, I need to leave some kind of legacy.

Darth Wong wrote:Are these "they're ruining Star Trek" people totally clueless? Franchise movies have been charting their own continuity over and over lately. Batman did it. X-Men did it. Iron Man did it. Spiderman did it. Just how slow-witted do these people have to be, not to see this coming? Or not to notice that these franchises have been strengthened by their respective reboots, not weakened by them?

Ah listen Mike we are all on board with rebooting Sar trek with an alternate universe, but i think most of us assumed Alternate universe= Same stories+goatees.

Remember that clunky nbsg looking enterprise that came out as a hoax purporting to be the "New reiamgined design"? it was actually not that disimiliar in shape from the TOS version. Anyway its growing pains, people will get over their objections once they realize they avhe no choice.

I really don't understand why there's so much hate for the Enterprise to be large. Different proportions I could get, but the size of the thing is just a matter of scale. Was the idea that TOS Enterprise was a smaller ship part of its charm?

Incidently, my Google search of "Monsterprise star trek" only reveals this forum, trek movie, and Darkstar's blog. Does that mean he's watching?

I wanna weigh in!

Let's look at this from a storytelling perspective. The important thing about the starship Enterprise (all of 'em) is that it's supposed to be surprisingly large. The exact dimensions don't really matter so long as it's big enough so a writer can insert a crewmember or a hitherto unseen room-of-the-week. The Enterprise is supposed to convey a feeling of a big, complex spaceship with lots of people, and lots of stuff. So one of the defining characteristics of the Enterprise is that it's big.

Saying that "the small size of the original is part of it's charm" is to eschew the whole point of the ship, even in TOS. The Enterprise was never supposed to seem small. In TOS the characters were always referring to the scale of the ship, & trying to let the viewer know how large and advanced the ship was. (remember when they beamed the fighter pilot from the 1960's aboard? Remember the conversation the pilot had with Cpt. Kirk?) It was always supposed to feel BIG. That's probably why they decided to make the E-D bigger than the orginal - to maintain the sense of "Wow, that's a bigass spaceship".

So if you want to tell a new Star Trek story, the Enterprise has to be surprisingly big. That's what the Enterprise is, it's big and futuristic. In order for the Enterprise to stay true to it's "dramatic purpose" (for lack of a better term) in 2009 they had to scale it up.

That stuff aside, the 700 meter length seems to match the visuals from the film, and that's the length given by the artists who designed it, so how is this even up for debate?

Zablorg wrote:I really don't understand why there's so much hate for the Enterprise to be large. Different proportions I could get, but the size of the thing is just a matter of scale. Was the idea that TOS Enterprise was a smaller ship part of its charm?

Incidently, my Google search of "Monsterprise star trek" only reveals this forum, trek movie, and Darkstar's blog. Does that mean he's watching?

I think it's been assumed for a while now that Darkstar has had a sockpuppet here since he was banned wayback ago that he uses to... lurk, and observe, I guess. Besides that, Star Trek is a public forum, so he could, for example, check it from his work computer even if he didn't have a sock.

Or he picked up up from Trekmovie.

Bernd is just a sad little trekky with a sore asshole. You should try dealing with the stupid lying cunt over at SCN on a daily basis.

Assumptions:

- The official baseline model at The Enterprise Project is an accurate rendition of the movie CGI

- The "floodlights" underneath the bridge dome represent windows, and the ones on the port and starboard side are the same size as the bridge window

- The windows on the edge of the saucer represent adjacent decks

- "Deck height" is understood to include both the habitable part of the deck and between-deck spaces

- I'm measuring the height of the bridge window, not the length

Caveat:

The image size of the model is too small for accurate measurements and all numbers are ballpark figures



So yeah... 305 meter Enterprise? Only if it's crewed by midgets. At that size the bridge window is a peephole, decks are lower than any corridor seen in the film with tin foil-thick floors, and Kirk's escape pod would have screeched out shooting sparks.

As for the pod hatch, keep in mind that the pod has a boatload of clearance and it was launched from an inner tube of sorts behind the interior bay doors. Saying "pod is 4ft, ergo port is 4ft" is asinine.

I've included measurements for 2500 and 3000ft but at this scale the difference is meaningless due to rounding and measurement errors. It can swing either way until we get higher-res orthos.

Zablorg wrote:I really don't understand why there's so much hate for the Enterprise to be large. Different proportions I could get, but the size of the thing is just a matter of scale. Was the idea that TOS Enterprise was a smaller ship part of its charm?

Incidently, my Google search of "Monsterprise star trek" only reveals this forum, trek movie, and Darkstar's blog. Does that mean he's watching?

ofc he's watching it's pretty much a know fact that he still has an unused account here, after all he's pretty much obsessed with Mike and rest of the people who had debated him is the past, though I cannot count myself among them (thankfully from what I've seen).

Nice, Bounty!

Of course I don't get the 'it must be small' crowd more than anyone else seems to. Especially considering that while the original is smaller than the newo ne the old Enterprise was still the size of a fucking aircraft carrier so it's not exactly little.

I don't think these people really care about the size of the ships that much - they certainly didn't seem bothered the the Ent-E was quite a bit smaller volume-wise than the Ent-D. It's probably just the fact that this new Trek film has dared to contradict their beloved canon.

Basically, imagine how Christians would react if someone rewrote the "fishes and loaves" story so that instead of 2 fishes and 5 loaves, you had 5 fishes and 16 loaves. Most people wouldn't give a crap about the difference, but those who had their identity wrapped up in Christianity would probably go ga-ga.

DaveJB wrote:I don't think these people really care about the size of the ships that much - they certainly didn't seem bothered the the Ent-E was quite a bit smaller volume-wise than the Ent-D. It's probably just the fact that this new Trek film has dared to contradict their beloved canon.

Basically, imagine how Christians would react if someone rewrote the "fishes and loaves" story so that instead of 2 fishes and 5 loaves, you had 5 fishes and 16 loaves. Most people wouldn't give a crap about the difference, but those who had their identity wrapped up in Christianity would probably go ga-ga.

Basically defending the purity of their lore?

DaveJB wrote:I don't think these people really care about the size of the ships that much - they certainly didn't seem bothered the the Ent-E was quite a bit smaller volume-wise than the Ent-D. It's probably just the fact that this new Trek film has dared to contradict their beloved canon.

Basically, imagine how Christians would react if someone rewrote the "fishes and loaves" story so that instead of 2 fishes and 5 loaves, you had 5 fishes and 16 loaves. Most people wouldn't give a crap about the difference, but those who had their identity wrapped up in Christianity would probably go ga-ga.

well OBVIUOUSLY sharing sixteen loaves isn't a miracle? N000b

I don't know what the canonical value will be but assuming things like the shuttlebay scale similarly, I expect this will be an authoritative source on the size of the new E when it arrives;

From TrekMovie

BOOK NEWS - Haynes Enterprise Manual announced
In a bit of a surprising announcement, Simon and Schuster (parent company of Pocket Books) is teaming up with Haynes (yes, the company who makes the automotive manuals) to produce a the "Haynes Enterprise Manual" for the new Enterprise featured in J. J. Abrams’ “Star Trek” feature film. According to a press release from CPLG (the rights marketing agency for Star Trek in Europe) the Haynes Guide will be the ultimate guide to the Enterprise, applying its famous ’step-by-step’ approach of stripping the ship down to its essentials and reassembling it with detailed illustrations.

CPLG would not provide any additional details or images, except to say the Enterprise guide will be out in 2010.

The best exterior shot of the bridge window I can find. Where exactly it is on the ship, I can't confirm it. However, Darkstar has a point, the light at the bottom of the bridge superstructure is the wrong proportions to be the window.

Where it is, though? Somewhere on the forward face of the structure, where, I don't know.

Looks like it's 4 meters high, though. Anyone able to crunch the numbers?

It is blatantly obvious in the movie where it is, the movie zooms by it at least twice. It's where the floodlights are on the TMP version.

I've considered that myself, but it doesn't look like it. It appears to be above what would be the rim dome of the TMP connie in the 'pull out the window and upside down and all around and oh look at the sick people in the audience' shot. Plus, the proportions seem to be wrong, as well.

You're just plain wrong. The camera starts on the bridge window, pans port and up, then goes straight into the double ridge of the bridge superstructure on the level above it (ie, where the bridge used to be), and then the bridge dome comes into view as the camera starts to pan out again.

The window is very clearly in the front of the bottom platform of the bridge superstructure, in the exact same spot as the floodlights. It's the same position, the same size and the same shape, and there's nothing in that area that could otherwise pass for a bridge window.

EDIT: using some quick-and-dirty scaling on the Gizmodo ortho, the bridge window lines up with a 700-900m Enterprise, too.

Bounty is right.

The issue with the proportions is one of perspective as the camera zooms by, I think, although I would like to see a screencap to be sure.

I've redone the scaling using the sideview posted in the sort of-official size chart rather than the model, which appears to suffer from a bad case of sagging nacelles.

Click me (and excuse the font, GIMP is having a bad day - it was this or Wingdings)

It's not a proper scaling since I worked backwards from the official figures rather than try and scale the ship myself. The conclusions:

- Window spacing works at any size, which isn't surprising since the size simply doubles. A 300 meter ship has two standard decks in the saucer, a 700m ship fits four, a 900m ship fits four really tall ones.

- The docking port is cramped at 300m and spacious at the other sizes. This one probably won't be settled until we get clear shots of the ejection sequence.

- The bridge window very clearly only works on a ship that close to 700m at the least. I've used 3.5 pîxels, which is admittedly sloppy but I feel this best accounts for the fuzziness of the low resolution.In the end it hardly matters due to rounding errors anyway.

- The shuttlebay simply cannot fit in any way, shape or form in a 300m ship. It just about fits the 700 one and the 900 would have room to spare.

---

Of the official figures, the 762 one fits the visual evidence closest. At this size the new features (shuttlebay, bridge) scale almost perfectly while the transplanted old features (docking port, window spacing) scale alonng up quite nicely.

Scaling the ship from the ground up based on the bridge window, assuming a 1.8 meter height for the window itself (based on the 1.88m Quinto not quite filling the frame when standing before it, and accounting for the window starting somewhat off the ground), I get a length of 721 meters. Accounting for rounding and measuring errors, that's... bang on the official size.

Bounty wrote:I've redone the scaling using the sideview posted in the sort of-official size chart rather than the model, which appears to suffer from a bad case of sagging nacelles.

Nice work, Bounty!

God Almighty, Bounty! Even if you did work backwards from the official figs, I'm with McC: that's impressive as all get-out IMO.

Here's how the deck layout would work out at the official size of 726 meters.

Discounting the bridge dome, that's 38 habitable decks. Sample tour:

- The Observation Lounge is on 2
- Bridge is on 3
- Impulse engineering, if it exists in this continuity, would be on deck 8
- The planetary sensor dome is on deck 18
- Docking ports are decks 19 and 30
- Torpedo launcher is on deck 21
- Hangar bay is on deck 29

Very impressive work!

I've been thinking about that since the movie clearly shows the bridge window lower than one would think from previous shows. So deck 3 huh? Not much volume for deck 2 or 1, what's there? Why have itty bitty rooms/decking above the bridge? How do you get there? Just the turbolift that services the bridge?