Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

[stitch626]

Keep in mind that the new Enterprise is 366m and not 305m. The torp launchers are approximately the same size. The shuttlebay size is an almost perfect match!

The torp launchers are no where near the same size. About half as small on the new E.


Also, I see no problems with having windows on every other deck. It makes sense structurally. Having windows every deck would weaken the overall structure (even with SIF) more than windows every other deck.


As to the bridge, it is almost twice the size of the original bridge internally. This means that if they are even close to the same size overall, then the bridge on the original E would have to be on the bottom of the bridge bulge (where the three windows are, right before the saucer).

[Captain Seafort]

Sure. We all expected the ship to be the same size after seeing the first pictures just because of the legacy.

Agreed, especially given that the first images showed a ship with strong superficial similarities to the refit-Connie (the saucer). We were wrong.

But there was an extremely good reason for it, as the ship was designed by Ryan Church at about the same size, because he respected the legacy. Well, somewhat larger, but still all criteria that we customarily apply to assess the ship's size by its look (such as windows rows) were perfectly met, while the act of scaling it up without reflecting it in the design throws all of them overboard.

The problem with that approach is that it uses characteristics established by the Geneverse to analyse Abramsverse ships. The two Treks are completely separate, to a degree far greater than that hypothesised by Spock when he pinned the point of departure on the Narada's arrival. The size of the neoE, the Kelvin (a mere science vessel bigger than the E-nil), the greatly expanded role of shuttles, the operating mechanism of the phasers and the new-pattern viewscreens all point to a far earlier divergence .

So canonically it may be logical to assume the ship is much larger because it looks so in a few scenes.

Not merely a few scenes - virtually every scene in which scaling is possible points to a ship far larger than the E-nil.

But the structure indicates that it is much smaller, that it is still the size it was designed at.

Why? As I said, you're using Geneverse precedent to analyse an Abramsverse ship.

The shuttlebay size is an almost perfect match!

Apart from the fact that it's about ten times the volume.

[Mark]

The problem with that approach is that it uses characteristics established by the Geneverse to analyse Abramsverse ships. The two Treks are completely separate, to a degree far greater than that hypothesised by Spock when he pinned the point of departure on the Narada's arrival. The size of the neoE, the Kelvin (a mere science vessel bigger than the E-nil), the greatly expanded role of shuttles, the operating mechanism of the phasers and the new-pattern viewscreens all point to a far earlier divergence .

This supports my theory of "Enterprise" taking place in the Abramsverse, the the Geneverse.

[Captain Seafort]

This supports my theory of "Enterprise" taking place in the Abramsverse

Entirely possible. It would handily solve the canon problems with the series, if not the shit writing.

the the Geneverse.

[Bernd]

Captain Seafort wrote:
Agreed, especially given that the first images showed a ship with strong superficial similarities to the refit-Connie (the saucer). We were wrong.

Those who scaled up the ship were wrong.

Captain Seafort wrote:
Why? As I said, you're using Geneverse precedent to analyse an Abramsverse ship.

At this point we'd have to clarify whether we are talking about a different timeline in the same sci-fi universe or of a complete reboot. In the latter case I'd agree with most of your arguments (only that the missing windows still wouldn't make sense!), but then I could just as well give a damn about anything that happens in the Abramsverse.

stitch626 wrote:
Also, I see no problems with having windows on every other deck. It makes sense structurally. Having windows every deck would weaken the overall structure (even with SIF) more than windows every other deck.

Not on any other Starfleet ship we've ever seen.

stitch626 wrote:
The torp launchers are no where near the same size. About half as small on the new E.

I overlaid them. It's a bit smaller on the 366m Enterprise, definitely more than half the size.

As the total separation of the Abramsverse from Old Trek has been mentioned, I see that as an ultima ratio in case everything fails. The problem is that it would not comply with the official canon policy. I assume you have all been reading Orci's various justification attempts. Every official source will always fervently insist on Star Trek having an uninterrupted continuity. Not acknowledging the very premise of the Abramsverse is far worse of an "offense" than simply not buying the result of an awkward attempt to make the ship look bigger that was done with a few mouse and key clicks. As ironical as it is, by assuming a reasonable size for the ship that would comply with what we know from Old Trek I am sort of defending the Abramsverse and preventing it from winding up in a popcorn movie ghetto where continuity does not matter.

[Aaron]

Honestly I think I would prefer Abramsverse to have a completely separate continuity from the old franchise, yeah it gave us great stuff (TOS) but it also gave us some complete shite. And as far as I'm concerned having the latter around is just an albatross hanging around the neck of a potentially vibrant franchise. I get that Paramount probably doesn't want to piss off the fatty nerd built in fanbase but nBSG managed to do it successfully, regardless of that series flaws.

[stitch626]

I overlaid them. It's a bit smaller on the 366m Enterprise, definitely more than half the size.

Well from the picture I posted, the E-A is at a 10:00 angle, while the E-new is at an 11:30, so any overlay would be flawed in favor of a larger E-new.

If however, you used different images (or even better, have an overlay image), please do provide.

[Captain Seafort]

Those who scaled up the ship were wrong.

Those who scaled up the ship were the producers. They can make it the size of a GSV if they want.

At this point we'd have to clarify whether we are talking about a different timeline in the same sci-fi universe or of a complete reboot.

There's no practical difference between the two. In one, everything we see is completely different from everything we've previously known, with no IU explanation why. In the other, everything we see is completely different from everything we've previously known, with an IU explanation why.

only that the missing windows still wouldn't make sense!

Why not? It's already been pointed out that windows weaken the ship - the fewer of them you have the better.

but then I could just as well give a damn about anything that happens in the Abramsverse.

Which is evidently the case given the efforts you've gone to to argue that the neoE is actually half the size it's depicted in the film.

Not on any other Starfleet ship we've ever seen.

Given that we've only seen one other Starfleet ship in the Abramseverse (the Kelvin), that's not much of a sample.

As the total separation of the Abramsverse from Old Trek has been mentioned, I see that as an ultima ratio in case everything fails. The problem is that it would not comply with the official canon policy.

Why not? I've seen nothing to imply that the "all live-action Trek" canon policy has been changed.

I assume you have all been reading Orci's various justification attempts. Every official source will always fervently insist on Star Trek having an uninterrupted continuity.

I've seen him point out that the existence of the Abramsverse has no effect whatsoever on the Geneverse, but no more than that.

As ironical as it is, by assuming a reasonable size for the ship that would comply with what we know from Old Trek I am sort of defending the Abramsverse and preventing it from winding up in a popcorn movie ghetto where continuity does not matter.

How would the separate timeline of the Abramsverse make continuity irrelevant? The fact that isn't consistent with the Geneverse doesn't prevent it from being self-consistent, any more than that was true of the Mirror Universe.

[Bernd]

Captain Seafort wrote:There's no practical difference between the two. In one, everything we see is completely different from everything we've previously known, with no IU explanation why. In the other, everything we see is completely different from everything we've previously known, with an IU explanation why.

There is a huge difference, and you must have missed all discussions about all previous new Star Trek installments if you don't recognize it. We either pretend it is still the same universe and everything that doesn't fit may be explained away or it has to be rated as an error. Or it's a new universe, it all doesn't matter, and the Klingons could be pink furry creatures if the producers wanted them to. So you have chosen it is a new universe, while I cling to the official stance that everything has to fit in some fashion as Orci repeatedly explained and defended (against people like me!). Don't always try to invalidate my arguments that don't apply in the very premise you have obviously chosen for yourself.

In simple words: We're either talking about the same thing, and you should react to my points instead of declaring them invalid, or we're talking about different things and you could care less about what I'm saying.

[Captain Seafort]

There is a huge difference, and you must have missed all discussions about all previous new Star Trek installments if you don't recognize it. We either pretend it is still the same universe and everything that doesn't fit may be explained away or it has to be rated as an error. Or it's a new universe, it all doesn't matter, and the Klingons could be pink furry creatures if the producers wanted them to.

Or it's a combination of the two - it's an alternate reality, just as the MU is. It's linked to the original run, and is an offshoot of it, but has many differences, including the technological base. That doesn't mean that everything from the Geneverse can be thrown out, any more than you can completely ignore the prime universe when discussing the MU.

So you have chosen it is a new universe, while I cling to the official stance that everything has to fit in some fashion as Orci repeatedly explained and defended (against people like me!). Don't always try to invalidate my arguments that don't apply in the very premise you have obviously chosen for yourself.

I agree that things have to fit, but I disagree with your approach that things have to fit so closely. This isn't a complete reboot in the same way nBSG was.

In simple words: We're either talking about the same thing, and you should react to my points instead of declaring them invalid, or we're talking about different things and you could care less about what I'm saying.

Or we're disagreeing about the extent of the differences, and on specific point you're making. Largely the issue that you can ignore evidence of the neoE's size simply because you're starting from the assumption that if this is a split-off from the Geneverse then principles established their must be the same. This is demonstrably not the case given that the MU, which has always be considered as a split from the Prime universe rather than completely separate, also has examples of species building ships far larger than their Prime counterparts - Regency One.

[Tyyr]

Bernd, you're missing the point, intentionally or not I dunno. The Abramsverse is an offshoot of the Geneverse, but the branch point is quite a ways back in time, at least five to ten years before the Kelvin ran into the Narada possibly even farther back than that. As such while the Abramsverse is going to follow some of the basic guidelines of Trek it is not going to be a one to one comparison with something like TOS. By the time we see the Neo-E the universes have been diverging for at least twenty five years, possibly quite a bit longer. That's how it fits in with the rest of Trek.

only that the missing windows still wouldn't make sense!

Why? Why would having levels with no windows not make sense? Maybe they're levels that only contain machinery. Maybe they're enlisted decks and they don't rate windows. There's nothing that says there has to be a one to one correlation between windows and decks.

[Captain Seafort]

The universes have been diverging for a lot more than a quarter of a century - even if you ignore the size of the Kelvin, the neoE is about an order of magnitude larger than the E-nil. The difference that shows in the entire industrial base isn't something that can occur in such a short time. It's the equivalent of the Japanese building a half-million ton battleship instead of the Yamato because something different happened in WW1. That's impossible - the PoD would have to have been a century or two earlier.

[Tyyr]

The universes have been diverging for a lot more than a quarter of a century - even if you ignore the size of the Kelvin, the neoE is about an order of magnitude larger than the E-nil. The difference that shows in the entire industrial base isn't something that can occur in such a short time. It's the equivalent of the Japanese building a half-million ton battleship instead of the Yamato because something different happened in WW1. That's impossible - the PoD would have to have been a century or two earlier.

I only said "at least" twenty five because it had to have diverged pre-Kelvin. How much farther back I dunno, but at a minimum it's 25 years.

[Captain Seafort]

Fair enough - I was simply expanding on "more than 25 years".

[Aaron]

Why? Why would having levels with no windows not make sense? Maybe they're levels that only contain machinery. Maybe they're enlisted decks and they don't rate windows. There's nothing that says there has to be a one to one correlation between windows and decks.

Anyone else remember how few and far between the windows where on the TOS Big E and the Refit?