StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm curious just how big the new Enterprise's supposed to be, so I tried to scale it. The scaling's based on a scoopload of assumptions wrapped into a kebab of rounding errors, and I'm not sure how to account for perspective, so feel free to tear into it, and please don't think I'm presenting this as gospel.

I noticed the EW image in the other thread has two features that seem to have carried over directly from the TMP Constitution model: a docking port in the neck, and a second docking port in the side of the engineering hull. Starting from the assumption that these docking ports are the same size as the TMP variant, and working from the established size of the TMP ship, I tried to see if I could extrapolate their size to the whole ship.

So, how big are the docking ports on the TMP vessel? On a 1525px wide sizeview, the ports are 18px wide. Going with the official 305m figure for the ship as a whole, this gives the ports as width of 3.6 meters, or 1.18% of the overall length.



(click for original image)

On the XI Enterprise, the ports are approximately 5px wide on a 682px long ship - 0.73% of overall length.



Thus suggesting an overall length of (100 / (5 / 6.82))* 3.6 = 491.04 meters, or (100 / (6 / 6.82)) * 3.6 = 409.2 meters if we take the 6px figure. This doesn't account for the difference in perspective, but unless I'm very much mistaken this should only affect the absolute measurements, not the ratio between two measurements on the same image, correct?

Now, I know many of you are crying by now, with good reason:

- The images are too small to get a decent measurement.
- The perspective in the second image isn't just distorted left-to-right, it's also distorted vertically by the camera looking "up", and I didn't bother to account for that when measureing the overall length.
- I assume the ports are the same size, when there's no evidence to suggest they are.
- I assume the nacelles will look the same as this photoshopped "uncropped" version of the EW original assume they are.

With all that in mind all I can really say is that the new Enterprise is... well, somewhere between 300 and 500 meters long, give or take a couple hundred; with the detailing suggesting a size closer to the upper end of the range. If anyone wants to take a better stab at it, feel free.

The best way to judge its size would be to grab a cap of its construction from the full trailer. There is a full ship shot with plenty of stuff around it to scale with.

Cool. All this was for nothing then.

How big did it look in the trailer?

How big did it look in the trailer?

Hard to tell, the scenes with it in construction go by pretty quickly and other scenes with it lacked clear reference points.

In the origional series I assume they never tell us but we assume the Enterprise was built in space. If the Enterprise in the movie is now built on the ground (assuming that was the shot I saw in the promo before Bond) how much does that change things.

I always thought Federation ships were not really sturdy enough to survive their own weight. Does it alter anything we know about Federation material sciences that the ship is strong enough to be built on a planet then launched? While being built you can surround it with support structure but when she launches she has to support all her own weight unless you have remote projectable structural fields to hold the ship together.

Remember that the Enterprise was in the atmosphere for some time in TOS Tomorrow Is Yesterday, and was able to escape at impulse power.

Wasn't the fact that the E-D would collapse in a gravity well without the SIF a consequnce of it's enormous size?

Stark wrote:Wasn't the fact that the E-D would collapse in a gravity well without the SIF a consequnce of it's enormous size?

Doesn't seem likely, given how incredibly strong the E-D's saucer section was by withstanding planetary impact in Generations.

Bubble Boy wrote:Doesn't seem likely, given how incredibly strong the E-D's saucer section was by withstanding planetary impact in Generations.

'Withstanding'? Interesting description.

In any case, utterly irrelevant since they had the SIF on at impact, and the underside of the saucer isn't examined. Regardless, the saucer is clearly not the least stable element of the ship; saying the saucer can sit on the ground without collapsing in no way suggests you could park the entire ship on the ground and have it hold together, or build it on the ground and lift it into space without external reinforcement like SIF. The impact is irrelevant since their crash systems were in operation, and the saucer is DESIGNED to do that (allegedly).

I haven't seen the trailer but I would like to point out that there are several construction methods that would work in earth gravity. Building the ship in sections with a final mating in Orbit is certainly possible, and possibly preferable becuse that give you a 'shirtsleeve' enviroment for construction.
As others have pointed out we should never discount the effects of Trek's 'magic' forcefields which do damn well what the author demands they do. Holding the pieces together though the use of a SIF is probably the LEAST handwaving or techobabble way to explain it.

Just saw the trailer, is it just me or is OSHA totally gone in the future? There was not ONE safety railing or harness on any of the workers. That place just about defined 'dangerous work enviroment'

JGregory32 wrote:Just saw the trailer, is it just me or is OSHA totally gone in the future? There was not ONE safety railing or harness on any of the workers. That place just about defined 'dangerous work enviroment'

Maybe they all have personal forcefields.
Not as practical or cost-effective, but it's THE FUTURE! Tried and tested old tech is for sissies.

JGregory32 wrote:Just saw the trailer, is it just me or is OSHA totally gone in the future? There was not ONE safety railing or harness on any of the workers. That place just about defined 'dangerous work enviroment'

I did like the old-school ( as in similar to today) look to the Enterprise under construction. The massive scaffolding and the lights of dozens of welders just seemed so much more real and had a very cool look to it.

JGregory32 wrote:Just saw the trailer, is it just me or is OSHA totally gone in the future? There was not ONE safety railing or harness on any of the workers. That place just about defined 'dangerous work environment'

In a universe that has antigrav everywhere, I just assume the construction site has a giant invisible safety net under it.

Bounty wrote:

JGregory32 wrote:Just saw the trailer, is it just me or is OSHA totally gone in the future? There was not ONE safety railing or harness on any of the workers. That place just about defined 'dangerous work environment'

In a universe that has antigrav everywhere, I just assume the construction site has a giant invisible safety net under it.

Or the workers all wear versions of Spocks rocket boots. They wouldnt need as much thrust as his had. Basically something that kicked in when you fell more than 5 feet and slowed you down.

So the Star Trek pattern of relying on active rather than passive safety systems started long before TNG ever came around? Scotty MUST have been a real miracle worker because in TOS the ship didn't fly apart every other episode.

JGregory32 wrote:So the Star Trek pattern of relying on active rather than passive safety systems started long before TNG ever came around? Scotty MUST have been a real miracle worker because in TOS the ship didn't fly apart every other episode.

To be fair, the Empire didn't haven't any safety railings on the Death Star et al near open spaces, so brainfarts aren't exclusively a franchise thing.

"You wanna know what they said? They said they were worried we'd be leaning on it."

Seems to me like a decent guess could be had by comparing the windows along the edge of the saucer.

montypython wrote:

JGregory32 wrote:So the Star Trek pattern of relying on active rather than passive safety systems started long before TNG ever came around? Scotty MUST have been a real miracle worker because in TOS the ship didn't fly apart every other episode.

To be fair, the Empire didn't haven't any safety railings on the Death Star et al near open spaces, so brainfarts aren't exclusively a franchise thing.

Ever see the short spoof comic "A Death Star is Born"? It has a couple of hilarious comments on this.
"Vader, when I'm on this thing I want you with me at all times. The last thing I want is for someone to sneak up behind me and throw me into one of those pits"~Palpatine

Stark wrote:Wasn't the fact that the E-D would collapse in a gravity well without the SIF a consequnce of it's enormous size?

I'm pretty sure that it's stated in the TNG Technical Manual that the ship would "sag under its own weight" without the SIF.

This may be a stupid question but was the fact that the E-D would collapse in a gravity well ever mentioned OUTSIDE the TNG TM? It's obviously not DESIGNED to enter atmosphere and the general layout makes it prone to structural failures but outside the out of universe comment in the TM I don't recall them mentioning this in the series (mind you, I might be wrong as I'm working from memory here).
The durability (or lack thereof, mostly) of Starfleet building materials certainly hints at it rather strongly in cases but I don't recall anybody ever explicitly SAYING so.

Although it's not the E-D when Voyager crashlanded in "TImeless" the saucer section survived both the initial impact and remained intact long enough for the ship to become incased in ice.
This would argue that Star Trek material science is at least strong enough to resist gravity, highspeed impact, and the pressure of ice forming ontop of the saucer section.
Of course this if VOYAGER we are talking about but the episode is cannon.

Voyager has landing legs, genius. Think about it.

Fucking jesus. Did you think about that at all before posting? I hear 600m+ ships of precarious and ridiculous layout not designed to enter atmosphere = 300m ship of unibody layout designed to enter atmo AND LAND?

Please point out the landing legs in this shot.

This may be a stupid question but was the fact that the E-D would collapse in a gravity well ever mentioned OUTSIDE the TNG TM? It's obviously not DESIGNED to enter atmosphere and the general layout makes it prone to structural failures but outside the out of universe comment in the TM I don't recall them mentioning this in the series (mind you, I might be wrong as I'm working from memory here).
The durability (or lack thereof, mostly) of Starfleet building materials certainly hints at it rather strongly in cases but I don't recall anybody ever explicitly SAYING so.

I was responding to the question about the strength of materials used.