Confabulat: There appears to be some confusion about the size of the current movie Enterprise. I would think the nerds would have sorted all this out by now.

I don't understand how it isn't automatically the same size as the original one.

That being said, that looks like a Constitution-class silhouette, but a reboot one. The warp engines look too long for either though.

Whar Serenity?

I keep seeing Orion references, but my mind has a pulsed fission drive, not some shelved conventional craft.

If you can come up with a pure fusion drive then we might have a contender. Alas, we spent that money in Iraq.

Remember, in Sirens of Titan, how the president was going to fix the economy by spending massive amounts of money on a civilian space program. That's a stimulus program I can approve of, dump millions of man years into a space program and maybe we can get something nifty as a result.

/"man year" is my contribution to the macroeconomics.
//I know enough about economics to be honestly confused.

Size queen.

That Enterprise is tiny. The silhouette is wrong, but the only thing it could be is the original 1701.

cretinbob: Yeah, that must be the NCC 1701-E

No way. That thing was huge.

You know, after going out and looking at the specs of both the shuttle and the Enterprise, that is the 1701-E. You think of it as being bigger somehow, but it's still over 600 meters long.

swahnhennessy: You know, after going out and looking at the specs of both the shuttle and the Enterprise, that is the 1701-E. You think of it as being bigger somehow, but it's still over 600 meters long.

The saucer of the -E wasn't circular. It can't be. Someone may have taken the dimensions of it, but the silhouette is the original.

Confabulat: There appears to be some confusion about the size of the current movie Enterprise. I would think the nerds would have sorted all this out by now.

I was a bit surprised to see that, actually. I had thought it'd been.....for lack of a better term...'established',that the reboot Enterprise was roughly the size of the Enterprise E. Then I see that other list showing two different sizes for it. Odd. They usually have the 'specs' for those things pretty ironed out. Of course, isn't the size of both versions of the Galactica still fuzzy, too?

Still think the Enterprise E and the refit version from the TOS movies are the best looking versions . The reboot model isn't bad, just looks a little off to me, like the Enterprise D still does. Bus stop lounge bridge or Apple Store bridge? Both weird.

E
A
Original
Reboot
C
D
NX
B
J

OK, there seems to be a LOT of confusion over which version of the Enterprise that is. It is OBVIOUSLY the one from the reboot movie. The nacelles are tapered EXACTLY as they are on the new Enterprise from the movie. And no way in hell is it the 1701-E, the saucer is ROUND, the saucer on the E was OVAL.

Warp Drive isn't possible anyway...


/Discuss

Better, IMHO....Link

Next, we will compare actual rabbits to the Easter Bunny.

I just thought that I might stop by and mention the only thing I learned as a philosophy-wannabe: The Problem of Bearerless Names. Essentially the problem is deciding on the truth-value of statements made about persons, places, and things that are fictional. This is one instance of it: How can the non-existent Enterprise be 900' rather than 1200', when there's nothing to measure?

Mugato: Nurglitch: I just thought that I might stop by and mention the only thing I learned as a philosophy-wannabe: The Problem of Bearerless Names. Essentially the problem is deciding on the truth-value of statements made about persons, places, and things that are fictional. This is one instance of it: How can the non-existent Enterprise be 900' rather than 1200', when there's nothing to measure?

This is why people hate philosophy majors.


Because, while fictional, someone, somewhere wrote down the specs?

And, no Freespace yet? I'm disappoint.

Iblis824: Because, while fictional, someone, somewhere wrote down the specs?

*sniffs and pushes up his hornrimed glasses.*

*Snort* Well ACTUALLY. *honk* Teh size of Enterprise has never been officially released by the producers. It's all third party conjecture. That said, The enterprise is actually as long has the same square footage as 200,000 bags of cheese doodles. I know this because I made a replica of the enterprise out of cheese doodles.

Your_Huckleberry: Confabulat: There appears to be some confusion about the size of the current movie Enterprise. I would think the nerds would have sorted all this out by now.

I was a bit surprised to see that, actually. I had thought it'd been.....for lack of a better term...'established',that the reboot Enterprise was roughly the size of the Enterprise E. Then I see that other list showing two different sizes for it. Odd. They usually have the 'specs' for those things pretty ironed out. Of course, isn't the size of both versions of the Galactica still fuzzy, too?

Still think the Enterprise E and the refit version from the TOS movies are the best looking versions . The reboot model isn't bad, just looks a little off to me, like the Enterprise D still does. Bus stop lounge bridge or Apple Store bridge? Both weird.

E
A
Original
Reboot
C
D
NX
B
J

I always thought D looked rather stumpy. I'm used to it now, but still, a bit of a design miss.

/The hell is Enterprise-J?

Is it time for this page again?

Jeff Russell's Starship Dimensions

wildcardjack: I keep seeing Orion references, but my mind has a pulsed fission drive, not some shelved conventional craft.

If you can come up with a pure fusion drive then we might have a contender. Alas, we spent that money in Iraq.

Remember, in Sirens of Titan, how the president was going to fix the economy by spending massive amounts of money on a civilian space program. That's a stimulus program I can approve of, dump millions of man years into a space program and maybe we can get something nifty as a result.

/"man year" is my contribution to the macroeconomics.
//I know enough about economics to be honestly confused.

Politics is two tabs over.

LoneWolf343: Enterprise-J

BAM

Link

Something doesn't look right...

Iblis824: Mugato: Nurglitch: I just thought that I might stop by and mention the only thing I learned as a philosophy-wannabe: The Problem of Bearerless Names. Essentially the problem is deciding on the truth-value of statements made about persons, places, and things that are fictional. This is one instance of it: How can the non-existent Enterprise be 900' rather than 1200', when there's nothing to measure?

This is why people hate philosophy majors.


Because, while fictional, someone, somewhere wrote down the specs?

That's one answer, but then what would make those specs true and different specs not true?

Mugato: Nurglitch: I just thought that I might stop by and mention the only thing I learned as a philosophy-wannabe: The Problem of Bearerless Names. Essentially the problem is deciding on the truth-value of statements made about persons, places, and things that are fictional. This is one instance of it: How can the non-existent Enterprise be 900' rather than 1200', when there's nothing to measure?

This is why people hate philosophy majors.

I always thought it was my sparkling personality.

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: OK, there seems to be a LOT of confusion over which version of the Enterprise that is. It is OBVIOUSLY the one from the reboot movie. The nacelles are tapered EXACTLY as they are on the new Enterprise from the movie. And no way in hell is it the 1701-E, the saucer is ROUND, the saucer on the E was OVAL.


So, wait, what was the gravity mechanism if the saucer was oval? I always assumed the saucer rotated in order to generate a 'down' direction.

/Clearly, I never watched much ST

Nurglitch: Iblis824: Mugato: Nurglitch: I just thought that I might stop by and mention the only thing I learned as a philosophy-wannabe: The Problem of Bearerless Names. Essentially the problem is deciding on the truth-value of statements made about persons, places, and things that are fictional. This is one instance of it: How can the non-existent Enterprise be 900' rather than 1200', when there's nothing to measure?

This is why people hate philosophy majors.


Because, while fictional, someone, somewhere wrote down the specs?

That's one answer, but then what would make those specs true and different specs not true?


If its the specs the creators wrote down, then i'd imagine those are the intended ones. If they are using implied specs based on size reference, I'd imagine it would be the most commonly used reference size.

Loomy: So, wait, what was the gravity mechanism if the saucer was oval? I always assumed the saucer rotated in order to generate a 'down' direction.

/Clearly, I never watched much ST


It was magic. If anybody offers a slightly more technical sounding explanation, it's still bullshiat and magic. There is no way to simulate gravity in a spaceship other than by rotating, but man that's going to kill the budget for the show, so just have them walk around like normal. Same in just about every space movie or TV show.

Reboot Enterprise was scaled correctly by ILM, and then JJ and the writers decided to make it bigger than the D after the fact. So, no on e really knows the right size, since the model makers and the show writers both have different stories.

Either way, it's the Apple Enterprise.

Loomy: So, wait, what was the gravity mechanism if the saucer was oval? I always assumed the saucer rotated in order to generate a 'down' direction.

"Artificial gravity plating" in the deck plates. And the saucer section doesn't rotate ;)

beantowndog: Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: "Artificial gravity plating" in the deck plates.

I used that stuff when I built my house.

Oh man, I hope you didn't get yours from Space China.

No Skylab?