BluRay Extras

[Captain Seafort]

He ain't gonna like it then... although some of the reasons why the Enterprise is less than 750m is just a point of view rather than reason.

It's worse than that - the ship is demonstrably the best part of half a mile long - you can see that from the scenes in the shuttle bay and engineering. Schneider's problem is that he's starting from the conclusion that the neo-E is the same size as the old E-nil, despite it being a new ship in a new universe (in which a vessel 20+ years older than the neo-E is bigger than the E-nil), and working backwards from that, rather than using the film to determine the size of the ship.

[Lazar]

Bernd Schneider runs Ex Astris Scientia, and he is not, by a very long shot, a fan of the neoE, or pretty much anything about the Abramsverse for that matter. One of his big gripes is that it's "too big", and he rejects any evidence that demonstrates the ship's size as "SFX errors".

I sympathize with him in that I don't like the idea of the huge Enterprise, but by now the canonical facts are pretty clear.

[Avatar2312]

Actually the current Enterprise fits its role better, than a 289m long Starship. Especially if it has to serve a military AND scientific purpose. Even todays cruisers are almost 200m in length and just swimming and shooting occasionally. Going through the final frontier and exploring a billion of new things requires a vast number of different facilities... not to mention that you have a brewery in engineering.

[Mikey]

I think a lot of that is mitigated by the idea that the 23rd century has considerably more miniaturization of technology than we do.

[Avatar2312]

You can't miniaturize - at least without some freaky nebula radiation - people, supplies they need (don't come with replicators cause you actually don't see one in TOS), water, things they encounter and might want to examine on board, computer-frames (for you have to use your fingers on them and see what's on the displays). Furthermore is the effect of smaller processors, power plants etc. greatly negated through the need of performing much more and much complicated calculations and needing much more energy (you definetly can't fold space enough with an alkaline battery to create a warp-field) and I think that TOS was far more unrealistic in these ways.

On the other hand you could also argue, that the more advanced construction abilities and the absence of money would let you make a larger ship without any penalties.

[Mikey]

Unrealistic? We're talking about spaceships that travel faster than light! TOS was no less realistic than the rest of 'Trek in this regard - that is, it was as fantastical as the rest. As to the prior part of your comment... really? If you can only miniaturize part of your load-out, you don't think the overall amount is affected?

[Avatar2312]

Simply because what is going to be reduced in size like cpu's and internal network already uses up only a fraction of space and is furthermore implemented in casings you can't reduce, because otherwise wou wouldn't be able to operate. If you go on long term missions into deep space with only few supplies deliverable, you need lots of space for food-storage (and food isn't replicated in this era, cause otherwise the trouble with tribble has an existing problem), water storage and recycling, fuel storage (the ship still needs Hydrogen in some form and the bussard collectors only provide an increase in the mpg value).

And unrealistic not in terms of current science, but on requirements from a present point of view to meet the specs to use the science (like energy needed to operate a warp drive).

Additionally - as often seen - Starfleet often runs supply missions to its colonies with its MP-ships. Starfleets proudest ships are a combination of military, scientific and transportation vessel. To fulfill this the have to be larger than e.g. klingon ships of similar power which have a distinctive purpose like combat without science and transportation. And in an expected war with the Romulans you need space for troops and additional weaponry (and i never saw them shrinking a phaser to the size of a thumbnail).

So I think the big E is a good E for it lets the ship fulfill its many purposes without any doubt that it may not have the accomodation to fulfill them.

[stitch626]

You can't miniaturize - at least without some freaky nebula radiation - people, supplies they need (don't come with replicators cause you actually don't see one in TOS), water, things they encounter and might want to examine on board, computer-frames (for you have to use your fingers on them and see what's on the displays). Furthermore is the effect of smaller processors, power plants etc. greatly negated through the need of performing much more and much complicated calculations and needing much more energy (you definetly can't fold space enough with an alkaline battery to create a warp-field) and I think that TOS was far more unrealistic in these ways.

On the other hand you could also argue, that the more advanced construction abilities and the absence of money would let you make a larger ship without any penalties.

You mention people, on the original E there were only 400 crew. I can't recall what it is on the new one, but I think it is over 1000.
And considering the rate at which computer parts are increasing (in performance while maintaining the same physical size) I see no problem with processors being small.
As for power, they use a matter/anti-matter reactor (one that from most episodes seems to be more than 100% efficient at times, though thats from latter Trek), which, gram for gram, produces more power than any current (to my knowledge) reactor.

As for water storage, would it be more practical to store the hydrogen and oxygen separately (as liquids, not gas) and then combine them before usage? I know it can be done (hydrogen fuel cell for example), and I think it would take up less space because water is a rather large molecule due to its shape.

[Avatar2312]

I thought about that also, but LOX (liquid oxygen) has a density of roughly 1,14 kg/l making it only marginally smaller and denser than water, compared to be a trillion times more dangerous despite the necessity to keep it under control which can be extremely difficult given the dangers in space and the requirements of keeping the storage temperature below 90K. So the risks are far greater than the benefits from my perspective. If one storage tank of LOX explodes... well you know what happened to Apollo 13. If one storage tank of water rips... okay no showers for 2 days. Additionally water can be recycled.

[stitch626]

the requirements of keeping the storage temperature below 90K

Not as hard as keeping the Dueturium at near freezing (so about 4K) which is already done on starships.
Also, Keeping O₂ contained shouldn't be harder than keeping antimatter contained.

Also, you mention them not having replicators... they did have food synthesizers, which sounds much like a replicator.

[Captain Seafort]

Also, you mention them not having replicators... they did have food synthesizers, which sounds much like a replicator.

The difference is probably one of having far more limited ability to rearrange the base substances. It wouldn't, however, make all that much of a difference in terms of volume - you'd be able to store everything in a big tank (or several big tanks), rather than having to worry about specialised storage arrangements for perishables, but you've still got to physically store the base matter.

[stitch626]

Also, you mention them not having replicators... they did have food synthesizers, which sounds much like a replicator.

The difference is probably one of having far more limited ability to rearrange the base substances. It wouldn't, however, make all that much of a difference in terms of volume - you'd be able to store everything in a big tank (or several big tanks), rather than having to worry about specialised storage arrangements for perishables, but you've still got to physically store the base matter.

Even with TNG replicators, you need matter. And during ENT, they could covert human waste to pretty much anything, so I don't see why they couldn't do that in TOS.

[Captain Seafort]

Even with TNG replicators, you need matter.

Which was exactly the point I was making

And during ENT, they could covert human waste to pretty much anything

Source?

I don't see why they couldn't do that in TOS.

It depends what "anything" is. I agree that they're capable of a degree of matter rearrangement, the issue is what degree. If, for example, they have to store complex protein strings rather than synthesising them, then that would be an improvement on modern storage, while still demonstrating the TNG replicators to be the considerable improvement they're implied to be.

And before anyone complains about my example (if it's a daft one) I'm a military historian, not a chemist or biologist.

[Tyyr]

The Ent episode that had them getting letters from school kids. I'm pretty sure Tucker said they turned their waste into boots.

[stitch626]

The Ent episode that had them getting letters from school kids. I'm pretty sure Tucker said they turned their waste into boots.

Yeah, I believe is exact words were "boots or anything else".

And before anyone complains about my example (if it's a daft one) I'm a military historian, not a chemist or biologist.

Actually thats a good example. Whether or not thats the way it is in Trek... I don't know.