Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   A size comparison chart of 20 real-life spaceships with the Starship Enterprise   (io9.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Enterprise, spacecrafts, charts, USS Enterprise  
•       •       •

13778 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Jun 2012 at 5:29 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-06-18 11:44:44 PM  
I like how the Enterprise is in the "in development" color.
 
2012-06-18 11:50:26 PM  
Page isn't loading for me.
 
2012-06-19 12:16:11 AM  
Yeah, that must be the NCC 1701-E. The final episode of Voyager where they flew under the Golden Gate was nice for setting up scale.

//of course that was an Intrepid class, not a Sovereign class. The Constitution class (1701) was still considerably smaller.
 
2012-06-19 02:07:05 AM  
Pic too big for link, so clicky-pop

Link
 
2012-06-19 04:51:51 AM  
That has to be NCC-1701 from TOS. NCC1701-D was so much larger than that they might almost....almost....have gotten the Space Shuttle into the docking bay.
 
2012-06-19 05:08:41 AM  
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.
 
2012-06-19 05:32:52 AM  

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.
 
2012-06-19 05:39:07 AM  
Whar Serenity?
 
2012-06-19 05:41:11 AM  
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.
 
2012-06-19 05:52:49 AM  
"So you're saying ALL the extra space is allotted to 'Captain's Sex Rooms?'"
 
2012-06-19 06:24:31 AM  
Size queen.
 
2012-06-19 06:38:34 AM  

Hardy-r-r: Whar Serenity?


And Browncoats have no idea why people get so annoyed at them......
 
2012-06-19 07:13:44 AM  

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.


There appears to be some confusion about the previous one, too. In First Contact, the ship has either 24 or 26 levels at different points. Apparently, the nerds care far more about this stuff than the writers do.
 
2012-06-19 07:14:22 AM  
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.
 
2012-06-19 07:20:57 AM  
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.
 
2012-06-19 07:37:32 AM  

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


Had that never happened, what do you think the odds are that we would have spent that money developing a fusion drive? Or even some sort of fission based drive (either a pulsed explosion drive, or something more tame like a NERVA)?
 
2012-06-19 07:46:10 AM  

dittybopper: Had that never happened, what do you think the odds are that we would have spent that money developing a fusion drive? Or even some sort of fission based drive (either a pulsed explosion drive, or something more tame like a NERVA)?


If not for the Iraq war, we could have had even more tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. Just imagine what kind of innovation that would have bought us!
 
2012-06-19 08:01:08 AM  

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.
 
2012-06-19 08:02:19 AM  

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
 
2012-06-19 08:03:46 AM  
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.
 
2012-06-19 08:07:53 AM  

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.


What he said. It's the Apple store Enterprise.
 
2012-06-19 08:25:19 AM  
The Enterprise in that comparison is right about 10 times the length of the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is just over 122 feet long. TOS Enterprise is 947 feet in length and the reboot Enterprise is around 1200 feet in length. So yeah, probably the latter.
 
2012-06-19 08:29:06 AM  
Warp Drive isn't possible anyway...


/Discuss
 
2012-06-19 08:29:08 AM  
Better, IMHO....Link
 
2012-06-19 08:33:30 AM  
Next, we will compare actual rabbits to the Easter Bunny.
 
2012-06-19 08:34:34 AM  

DamnYankees: Page isn't loading for me.


try hitting the refresh button about 6 times, each time a little more of the page will load.
I've given up on the Gawker universe for exactly that reason.
 
2012-06-19 08:35:34 AM  
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?
 
2012-06-19 08:38:57 AM  

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.
 
2012-06-19 08:41:01 AM  

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?
 
2012-06-19 08:45:15 AM  
And, no Freespace yet? I'm disappoint.

i1191.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-19 08:49:10 AM  

Scooty_Puff_Sr: Better, IMHO....Link


BAM ....Eve only
 
2012-06-19 08:53:20 AM  

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.
 
2012-06-19 08:54:38 AM  

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?
 
2012-06-19 08:57:09 AM  
Is it time for this page again?

Jeff Russell's Starship Dimensions
 
2012-06-19 09:07:47 AM  

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.
 
2012-06-19 09:09:30 AM  

LoneWolf343: Enterprise-J


BAM

Link
 
2012-06-19 09:09:46 AM  

corridor: Is it time for this page again?

Jeff Russell's Starship Dimensions


Wow that site is awesome.
 
2012-06-19 09:17:10 AM  
i258.photobucket.com

Something doesn't look right...
 
2012-06-19 09:17:34 AM  

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?
 
2012-06-19 09:19:32 AM  

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.
 
2012-06-19 09:31:04 AM  

czetie: dittybopper: Had that never happened, what do you think the odds are that we would have spent that money developing a fusion drive? Or even some sort of fission based drive (either a pulsed explosion drive, or something more tame like a NERVA)?

If not for the Iraq war, we could have had even more tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. Just imagine what kind of innovation that would have bought us!


Fewer dead brown people? Fewer dead US soldiers? Fewer grieving 99%?

/Two can play that game.
 
2012-06-19 09:31:47 AM  

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
 
2012-06-19 09:37:42 AM  

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.
 
2012-06-19 09:38:03 AM  

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.
 
2012-06-19 09:41:40 AM  
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.
 
2012-06-19 09:44:56 AM  

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 ;)
 
2012-06-19 09:47:27 AM  

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


I used that stuff when I built my house.
 
2012-06-19 09:51:07 AM  

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.
 
2012-06-19 09:52:10 AM  
No Skylab?
 
2012-06-19 09:53:42 AM  

Iblis824: 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.


If you jump high enough in the basement sometimes you stick to the ceiling.
 
2012-06-19 09:53:51 AM  

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.


The problem is that it's kind of hard to get a good look at it, the way Abrams works. And from the way he writes, I doubt he knows either, or cares.

I don't consider any of this Star Trek anyway, even with Paramount's imprimatur. Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it. That's like asking Uwe Boll to direct the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, and he decides that Lawrence is actually Lara Croft's son, and the British Empire was wiped out by atomic bombs dropped by Chamberlain, and Churchill comes back in a dream sequence somewhere in Canada.... You can expect some great action, but you wouldn't want to be sober for it. Also, bring motion sickness medicine.
 
2012-06-19 09:57:05 AM  
Looks like Kirk was compensating for something.
 
2012-06-19 10:12:45 AM  

Hardy-r-r: Whar Serenity?


Who?

Scooty_Puff_Sr: Better, IMHO....Link


And THIS.
 
2012-06-19 10:13:30 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: 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.

The problem is that it's kind of hard to get a good look at it, the way Abrams works. And from the way he writes, I doubt he knows either, or cares.

I don't consider any of this Star Trek anyway, even with Paramount's imprimatur. Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it. That's like asking Uwe Boll to direct the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, and he decides that Lawrence is actually Lara Croft's son, and the British Empire was wiped out by atomic bombs dropped by Chamberlain, and Churchill comes back in a dream sequence somewhere in Canada.... You can expect some great action, but you wouldn't want to be sober for it. Also, bring motion sickness medicine.


Whine more.
 
2012-06-19 10:16:21 AM  
czetie

dittybopper: Had that never happened, what do you think the odds are that we would have spent that money developing a fusion drive? Or even some sort of fission based drive (either a pulsed explosion drive, or something more tame like a NERVA)?

If not for the Iraq war, we could have had even more tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%.


Bill Clinton says renew all expiring tax cuts
 
2012-06-19 10:18:08 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: 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.

The problem is that it's kind of hard to get a good look at it, the way Abrams works. And from the way he writes, I doubt he knows either, or cares.

I don't consider any of this Star Trek anyway, even with Paramount's imprimatur. Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it. That's like asking Uwe Boll to direct the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, and he decides that Lawrence is actually Lara Croft's son, and the British Empire was wiped out by atomic bombs dropped by Chamberlain, and Churchill comes back in a dream sequence somewhere in Canada.... You can expect some great action, but you wouldn't want to be sober for it. Also, bring motion sickness medicine.


I didn't realize directors were also the writers.
 
2012-06-19 10:19:57 AM  

GAT_00: 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.


Yard upgrade.

First time I've seen Skylon to scale. I'm surprised at how large it is.
 
2012-06-19 10:24:28 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: That's like asking Uwe Boll to direct the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, and he decides that Lawrence is actually Lara Croft's son, and the British Empire was wiped out by atomic bombs dropped by Chamberlain, and Churchill comes back in a dream sequence somewhere in Canada.... You can expect some great action, but you wouldn't want to be sober for it. Also, bring motion sickness medicine


I would watch that.
 
2012-06-19 10:42:35 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I don't consider any of this Star Trek anyway, even with Paramount's imprimatur. Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it.


I liked Abrams' TREK fine, though I didn't know he'd never watched the show
before he got brought in. Even with that, I thought he did a better job than
Brannon Braga did with VOYAGER.

That's like asking Uwe Boll to direct the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, and he decides that Lawrence is actually Lara Croft's son, and the British Empire was wiped out by atomic bombs dropped by Chamberlain, and Churchill comes back in a dream sequence somewhere in Canada.... You can expect some great action, but you wouldn't want to be sober for it. Also, bring motion sickness medicine.

I'd watch that movie.
 
2012-06-19 10:45:27 AM  

dittybopper: czetie: dittybopper: Had that never happened, what do you think the odds are that we would have spent that money developing a fusion drive? Or even some sort of fission based drive (either a pulsed explosion drive, or something more tame like a NERVA)?

If not for the Iraq war, we could have had even more tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. Just imagine what kind of innovation that would have bought us!

Fewer dead brown people? Fewer dead US soldiers? Fewer grieving 99%?

/Two can play that game.


Two tabs over.
 
2012-06-19 10:48:55 AM  

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?


It can be measured.
 
2012-06-19 10:51:29 AM  

DamnYankees: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: 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.

The problem is that it's kind of hard to get a good look at it, the way Abrams works. And from the way he writes, I doubt he knows either, or cares.

I don't consider any of this Star Trek anyway, even with Paramount's imprimatur. Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it. That's like asking Uwe Boll to direct the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, and he decides that Lawrence is actually Lara Croft's son, and the British Empire was wiped out by atomic bombs dropped by Chamberlain, and Churchill comes back in a dream sequence somewhere in Canada.... You can expect some great action, but you wouldn't want to be sober for it. Also, bring motion sickness medicine.

Whine more.


Who pissed in your corn flakes? It's Star Trek, you tool. No one takes it seriously.
 
2012-06-19 10:53:28 AM  

Iblis824: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: 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.

The problem is that it's kind of hard to get a good look at it, the way Abrams works. And from the way he writes, I doubt he knows either, or cares.

I don't consider any of this Star Trek anyway, even with Paramount's imprimatur. Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it. That's like asking Uwe Boll to direct the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, and he decides that Lawrence is actually Lara Croft's son, and the British Empire was wiped out by atomic bombs dropped by Chamberlain, and Churchill comes back in a dream sequence somewhere in Canada.... You can expect some great action, but you wouldn't want to be sober for it. Also, bring motion sickness medicine.

I didn't realize directors were also the writers.


Lots of them are. Like JJ Abrams, who wrote Taking Care of Business, Regarding Henry, Forever Young, Gone Fishin', Armageddon, Joy Ride, Mission: Impossible III, and Super 8 plus (at least parts of) the TV shows Felicity, Alias, Lost, Fringe, and Anatomy of Hope.
 
2012-06-19 10:53:45 AM  

Iblis824: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: 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.

The problem is that it's kind of hard to get a good look at it, the way Abrams works. And from the way he writes, I doubt he knows either, or cares.

I don't consider any of this Star Trek anyway, even with Paramount's imprimatur. Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it. That's like asking Uwe Boll to direct the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, and he decides that Lawrence is actually Lara Croft's son, and the British Empire was wiped out by atomic bombs dropped by Chamberlain, and Churchill comes back in a dream sequence somewhere in Canada.... You can expect some great action, but you wouldn't want to be sober for it. Also, bring motion sickness medicine.

I didn't realize directors were also the writers.


I actually don't remember what his level of involvement was, and I don't particularly care either. He's an easy target, and it's a crap movie no matter who's to blame. And I haven't liked anything else he's done, so meh. But that's just me. His work is obviously very popular. But I don't think that proves much. So is Budweiser, after all.
 
2012-06-19 10:55:37 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Iblis824: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: 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.

The problem is that it's kind of hard to get a good look at it, the way Abrams works. And from the way he writes, I doubt he knows either, or cares.

I don't consider any of this Star Trek anyway, even with Paramount's imprimatur. Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it. That's like asking Uwe Boll to direct the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, and he decides that Lawrence is actually Lara Croft's son, and the British Empire was wiped out by atomic bombs dropped by Chamberlain, and Churchill comes back in a dream sequence somewhere in Canada.... You can expect some great action, but you wouldn't want to be sober for it. Also, bring motion sickness medicine.

I didn't realize directors were also the writers.

I actually don't remember what his level of involvement was, and I don't particularly care either. He's an easy target, and it's a crap movie no matter who's to blame. And I haven't liked anything else he's done, so meh. But that's just me. His work is obviously very popular. But I don't think that proves much. So is Budweiser, after all.


When the entire world sees the world one way and you see it a different way, you're the one who is crazy.
 
2012-06-19 10:58:59 AM  

Saiga410: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: That's like asking Uwe Boll to direct the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, and he decides that Lawrence is actually Lara Croft's son, and the British Empire was wiped out by atomic bombs dropped by Chamberlain, and Churchill comes back in a dream sequence somewhere in Canada.... You can expect some great action, but you wouldn't want to be sober for it. Also, bring motion sickness medicine

I would watch that.


DjangoStonereaver: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I don't consider any of this Star Trek anyway, even with Paramount's imprimatur. Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it.

I liked Abrams' TREK fine, though I didn't know he'd never watched the show
before he got brought in. Even with that, I thought he did a better job than
Brannon Braga did with VOYAGER.

That's like asking Uwe Boll to direct the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, and he decides that Lawrence is actually Lara Croft's son, and the British Empire was wiped out by atomic bombs dropped by Chamberlain, and Churchill comes back in a dream sequence somewhere in Canada.... You can expect some great action, but you wouldn't want to be sober for it. Also, bring motion sickness medicine.

I'd watch that movie.


So would I, to be honest. And I'd probably enjoy it, too. Star Trek the Star Trek was fun to watch, too, and I'm a big Trek fan. But I still think it's crap as Star Trek goes. It had its points, but it was mostly very stupid.
 
2012-06-19 11:01:06 AM  

meanmutton: 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?

It can be measured.


I'll just leave this here.
 
2012-06-19 11:01:56 AM  

meanmutton: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Iblis824: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: 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.

The problem is that it's kind of hard to get a good look at it, the way Abrams works. And from the way he writes, I doubt he knows either, or cares.

I don't consider any of this Star Trek anyway, even with Paramount's imprimatur. Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it. That's like asking Uwe Boll to direct the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, and he decides that Lawrence is actually Lara Croft's son, and the British Empire was wiped out by atomic bombs dropped by Chamberlain, and Churchill comes back in a dream sequence somewhere in Canada.... You can expect some great action, but you wouldn't want to be sober for it. Also, bring motion sickness medicine.

I didn't realize directors were also the writers.

I actually don't remember what his level of involvement was, and I don't particularly care either. He's an easy target, and it's a crap movie no matter who's to blame. And I haven't liked anything else he's done, so meh. But that's just me. His work is obviously very popular. But I don't think that proves much. So is Budweiser, after all.

When the entire world sees the world one way and you see it a different way, you're the one who is crazy.


So, I'm crazy if I think that Budweiser is crap? Dude, you're embarrassing even by Michigan standards.
 
2012-06-19 11:15:42 AM  

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?


And even if no one did, the ship is visible on screen in relation to other objects, in such a way that size might be estimated the same way you can look at a picture of something and determine how big it might be?
 
2012-06-19 11:22:38 AM  

imontheinternet: meanmutton: 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?

It can be measured.

I'll just leave this here.


That just about sums it up.
 
2012-06-19 11:42:49 AM  
img535.imageshack.us

Feeling inadequate?
 
2012-06-19 11:43:19 AM  
Whar is deathstar?
 
2012-06-19 11:46:57 AM  
The only Enterprises with very solid scale references are the ones Andrew Probert worked on from Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek: The Next Generation. They were designed from the start with deck-by-deck cutaways. The external docking ports on the models correspond to full-size sets. There you go.

The Enterprise in that chart is definitely the 2009 movie one and that makes the chart pretty random because nobody really knows what size that Enterprise is. I think they actually rescaled it a few times during production. And Engineering was shot in a brewery. Good luck making a ship diagram from that.
 
2012-06-19 12:18:47 PM  
Interesting how I09 took Boing Boing's chart of actual or proposed space vehicles and compared them all to the fictional Enterprise.
 
2012-06-19 12:23:04 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: So, I'm crazy if I think that Budweiser is crap? Dude, you're embarrassing even by Michigan standards.


If you think you're the only one who thinks Budweiser is crap, then yes, you are crazy.
 
2012-06-19 12:25:57 PM  

Hardy-r-r: Whar Serenity?


They were going to do a comparison but it got cancelled because nobody was interested in seeing it.
 
2012-06-19 01:52:17 PM  

Scooty_Puff_Sr: Better, IMHO....Link


This.

/and years old
//io9, once again on the leading edge of nothing
 
2012-06-19 02:17:28 PM  

Hardy-r-r: Whar Serenity?


Whar SDF-1?
 
2012-06-19 02:27:45 PM  

Nem Wan: And Engineering was shot in a brewery. Good luck making a ship diagram from that.


I always wondered exactly why a starship powered by matter/antimatter reactions would need quite that much water.
 
2012-06-19 03:12:45 PM  
ArcadianRefugee

//io9, once again on the leading edge of nothing

Leading source of all green-lites on fark.

Their content is crap, but they have the moderators in their pocket.
 
2012-06-19 03:18:13 PM  
No link to the Reddit remix? For shame!

i.imgur.com


Bigger image linky.
 
2012-06-19 04:39:52 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it.


That's farked up with all the writers in and out of Hollywood, they find the one who never saw Star Trek.
 
2012-06-19 04:52:18 PM  

grinding_journalist: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: So, I'm crazy if I think that Budweiser is crap? Dude, you're embarrassing even by Michigan standards.

If you think you're the only one who thinks Budweiser is crap, then yes, you are crazy.


Kid, I'm really trying to give you a chance here, but if you're determined to prove how useless you are, I can't help you.
 
2012-06-19 04:54:08 PM  

RatMaster999: Hardy-r-r: Whar Serenity?

Whar SDF-1?


Whar Lexx?

Seriously, a fictional spaceship can be any arbitrary size. Comparing them to real ones is meaningless. If the point is that our imagination outsizes our accessible reality, then please tell me no one got paid for TFA.
 
2012-06-19 04:55:42 PM  

bbfreak: No link to the Reddit remix? For shame!

[i.imgur.com image 640x468]


Bigger image linky.


Is it just me, or does Skylon look like something some kid came up with during a study period?
 
2012-06-19 05:18:41 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: bbfreak: No link to the Reddit remix? For shame!

[i.imgur.com image 640x468]


Bigger image linky.

Is it just me, or does Skylon look like something some kid came up with during a study period?


Well it was developed by a guy who had another space plane idea in the 1980's that was cancelled and has been in development since the 1990's. So I wouldn't hold my breath on it flying anytime soon.
 
2012-06-19 05:40:54 PM  

bbfreak: No link to the Reddit remix? For shame!

[i.imgur.com image 640x468]


Bigger image linky.


No, were too busy linking to the AWESOME GRAND DADDY OF SPACESHIP COMPARISONS. Go back to reddit.
 
2012-06-19 06:10:33 PM  

Iblis824: LoneWolf343: Enterprise-J

BAM

Link


Wow, that's ugly.

/Didn't watch much of Enterprise.
//Doesn't seem to be missing out on much
 
2012-06-19 06:16:46 PM  
Starships run with engines the size of a walnut.
Walnuts run with engines the size of starships!

/Things that would blow your mind, Scotty...
 
2012-06-19 06:18:33 PM  

GAT_00: but a reboot one


Ahh.
Also the space shuttle is not a large as one may think it is.
 
2012-06-19 08:52:49 PM  
Whar V'Ger? Whar????
 
2012-06-19 09:08:51 PM  

Clyde_Suckfinger: Whar V'Ger? Whar????


Right here.
 
2012-06-19 10:25:31 PM  
STAR TREK IS REAL TO ME, DAMMIT!
 
2012-06-19 10:39:44 PM  
Where's Jaws? I don't understand all the fancy moon man kilometers and such but I know Jaws is 25 feet.
 
2012-06-20 12:03:19 AM  
 
2012-06-20 03:12:26 AM  

Mugato: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it.

That's farked up with all the writers in and out of Hollywood, they find the one who never saw Star Trek.


That's crap. Abrams never said he never watched Star Trek, that's virtually impossible for people of a certain age. He just said he was more of a Star Wars guy.

God, Trekkies. Abrams was the best thing that's ever happened to Trek. Maybe you prefer Rick Berman?
 
2012-06-20 03:23:51 AM  

Confabulat: Mugato: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Abrams admitted he hadn't even seen the show before being tapped to direct it.

That's farked up with all the writers in and out of Hollywood, they find the one who never saw Star Trek.

That's crap. Abrams never said he never watched Star Trek, that's virtually impossible for people of a certain age. He just said he was more of a Star Wars guy.

God, Trekkies. Abrams was the best thing that's ever happened to Trek. Maybe you prefer Rick Berman?


Agreed, Star Trek would be dead without Abrams regardless of his faults and he's better than Rick Berman by a mile.
 
2012-06-20 07:28:59 AM  

Confabulat: God, Trekkies. Abrams was the best thing that's ever happened to Trek. Maybe you prefer Rick Berman?


Actually, Berman went off the rails later on but Roddenberry's TNG was terrible. If Berman hadn't come in, Trek would have lasted long. All Abrams did was turn Star Trek into Star Wars, which is fine by me, but I can see how some Trekkies could be pissed.
 
2012-06-20 07:29:34 AM  
WOULDN'T that is
 
2012-06-20 12:53:45 PM  

Confabulat:

God, Trekkies. Abrams was the best thing that's ever happened to Trek.

LOLNo.

Maybe you prefer Rick Berman?

Also no. False Dichotomy.

bbfreak: Agreed, Star Trek would be dead without Abrams regardless of his faults and he's better than Rick Berman by a mile.


It's dead with Abrams. The reboot was an okay movie by itself, but, as an injection of fresh blood into the franchise, it's a failure. It's just not as interesting as a universe as it once was.
 
2012-06-20 05:28:30 PM  

LoneWolf343: Confabulat:

God, Trekkies. Abrams was the best thing that's ever happened to Trek.

LOLNo.

Maybe you prefer Rick Berman?

Also no. False Dichotomy.

bbfreak: Agreed, Star Trek would be dead without Abrams regardless of his faults and he's better than Rick Berman by a mile.

It's dead with Abrams. The reboot was an okay movie by itself, but, as an injection of fresh blood into the franchise, it's a failure. It's just not as interesting as a universe as it once was.


It was certainly better than the other Star Trek film released the same year. But not by much.
 
2012-06-20 06:10:36 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: LoneWolf343: Confabulat:

God, Trekkies. Abrams was the best thing that's ever happened to Trek.

LOLNo.

Maybe you prefer Rick Berman?

Also no. False Dichotomy.

bbfreak: Agreed, Star Trek would be dead without Abrams regardless of his faults and he's better than Rick Berman by a mile.

It's dead with Abrams. The reboot was an okay movie by itself, but, as an injection of fresh blood into the franchise, it's a failure. It's just not as interesting as a universe as it once was.

It was certainly better than the other Star Trek film released the same year. But not by much.


...Must have been, because I didn't hear about it.
 
2012-06-20 06:30:39 PM  

LoneWolf343: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: LoneWolf343: Confabulat:

God, Trekkies. Abrams was the best thing that's ever happened to Trek.

LOLNo.

Maybe you prefer Rick Berman?

Also no. False Dichotomy.

bbfreak: Agreed, Star Trek would be dead without Abrams regardless of his faults and he's better than Rick Berman by a mile.

It's dead with Abrams. The reboot was an okay movie by itself, but, as an injection of fresh blood into the franchise, it's a failure. It's just not as interesting as a universe as it once was.

It was certainly better than the other Star Trek film released the same year. But not by much.

...Must have been, because I didn't hear about it.


I meant it in the sense of: my Subaru ain't special, but it's better than the car I had before it -- which was NO car.

There was no other Star Trek film released in 2009. Abrams' was the only one. My point is that it was literally better than nothing. But not by much.
 
2012-06-20 08:43:10 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: There was no other Star Trek film released in 2009. Abrams' was the only one. My point is that it was literally better than nothing. But not by much.


No there was another. It was released in an alternate timeline where lens flare was non-existant.
 
2012-06-20 09:42:49 PM  

dittybopper: Fewer dead brown people? Fewer dead US soldiers? Fewer grieving 99%?

/Two can play that game


You may need to check the calibration on your Sarcasm Detecter. The clue is in the fact that nobody ever uses the expression "1%" in a positive light.
 
Displayed 105 of 105 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report