What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
206 Comments
- Westerhousen, on 05/14/2009, -4/+125Now compare that to your parent's basement.
- inactive, on 05/14/2009, -3/+82Two and half times bigger than the old Enterprise? WTFWTFWTF
- Mithradates, on 05/14/2009, -0/+56Makes sense considering the size of the ISS next to the other craft. It's true that the ISS is mostly solar panels and has no depth, but we're still talking about a pretty prominent ship from an interplanetary union a few centuries in the future, so that looks about right.
For comparison, the world's largest cruise ship at the moment is 360 metres, which is already larger than the old Enterprise. - prime9891, on 05/14/2009, -2/+51I saw this chart earlier today and it's inaccurate.
The Battlestar Galactica is about 1,438 meters in length (4,720 feet according to battlestar wiki). - DavidFromCanada, on 05/14/2009, -1/+40Actually the Battlestar Galatica is 4720 feet (1438.64m) according to the Battlestar Wiki.
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Galactica_(RDM)# ... - Consequences, on 05/14/2009, -0/+39I never realized the original enterprise was supposed to be less than 300 Meters. That seems TINY. I think I'm used to the TNG enterprise that housed like thousands of people.
- RonnieW, on 05/14/2009, -0/+31It's because the Romulans changed the future :)
- Kronos6948, on 05/14/2009, -0/+27Hell, a Sovereign class vessel is 685 meters, which is still smaller than this new Enterprise. That makes the windows on this new Enterprise seem way out of scale to the ship itself. They'd take up several floors.
- Chompy, on 05/15/2009, -0/+24If the Enterprise is 2400 feet long, than how ***** big was the frigging Romulan mining ship? What the hell were they mining with that thing?
- UselessTrivia, on 05/14/2009, -1/+24They have magical anti-gravity devices. I'm pretty sure launching from a planet causes them no problems. Without gravity as a factor, escape velocity isn't an issue.
- heavystone, on 05/14/2009, -2/+23Cruise ship? Hell, the worlds largest/longest tanker is 458.5 m (1,504 ft)! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock_Nevis
- JoeHague, on 05/14/2009, -0/+21How big is Nero's ship?
- inactive, on 05/14/2009, -0/+20Its even stranger because originally, the Enterprise was constructed in space. In the new movie, it is built on Earth.
- xaccie, on 05/14/2009, -1/+21"There is always a bigger fish"
- wild, on 05/14/2009, -1/+19[Abrams never bothered researching TOS enough...]
And yet he used the Beastie Boys song "Sabotage" in the movie in one of the coolest, nerdiest in-jokes of all time. - RogerStrong, on 05/14/2009, -0/+17Strange, if you look at the windows on both models, you quickly see that they're the same size. Only the claim about the size has changed.
- warriorscot, on 05/14/2009, -0/+17@Suzilla While I love Star Trek it is a bloody TV show everything doesn't have to be consistent to everything that was done in the past much of it from the 60s. Rodenberry himself was very flexible about the story and cannon and many things were because of physical limitations to what they could do in the 60s,70s and 80s with a limited budget and time.
- MarrowMan, on 05/14/2009, -0/+17I thought the Ship in the New film was just the plain old vanilla NCC 1701, no bloody A,B,C,D,E, or J
- Kerrigore, on 05/14/2009, -0/+16Blasphemer! Get him!
- downwithpeople, on 05/14/2009, -0/+16Dyson Sphere FTW.
- DivisibleByZero, on 05/14/2009, -0/+14Buried as inaccurate. That's the NCC-1701, not the NCC-1701-A
- Stemnin, on 05/14/2009, -0/+14It's bigger than the Galaxy class Enterprise D..
- Nicoon, on 05/14/2009, -0/+14An example of said budget cuts would be the addition of the transporter as it was not originally in the story Roddenberry wrote and was introduced due to the budget concerns regarding filming shuttles landing and taking off every other scene.
- OutAndAbout, on 05/14/2009, -0/+14Um, wasn't it just 1701 in the movie? No 1701-A classification like the chart shows.
- nomlah, on 05/14/2009, -3/+17An Imperial Star Destroyer is 1.6km long.
Check Mate! - inactive, on 05/14/2009, -1/+14Now compare it to a Star Destroyer!
- bjs3171, on 05/14/2009, -1/+13Isn't the Battlestar supposed to be more like a aircraft carrier?
- streak, on 05/14/2009, -1/+13Come on, let's make it even bigger. If it isn't bigger, it isn't better. And I know how to make it better.
MAKE IT BIGGER!!!! - kinerry, on 05/14/2009, -0/+12Unicron is bigger
- CaptTu, on 05/14/2009, -0/+11Here is Jeff Russell's STARSHIP DIMENSIONS...
A Museum of Speculative Fiction inspired Spaceships
http://www.merzo.net/index.html
Last updated in Nov. 2008. - brainflakes, on 05/14/2009, -1/+12http://lmgtfy.com/?q=space+ship+size&l=1
- kinerry, on 05/14/2009, -0/+11Unicron, larger than a planet, uncheckmated
- ParticleMan420, on 05/15/2009, -0/+11and thats why star trek dropped the hardcore trek fans (anti-fans actually), ignored them, and made a good trek for a change.
everything they do isnt good enough, you fans let the series die in the first place. if you werent such nit-picky douche nozzels they wouldnt have had to try (and succeed) in getting a new audience.
the best part is that Enterprise is still cannon, the most hated Trek by the anti-fans, and their sacred 'everything else' is up in the air - SuperJason, on 05/14/2009, -0/+10N
- nomlah, on 05/14/2009, -0/+10exactly what i was saying :P
the Enterprise is about the same length as a victory class star destroyer,
but then youve got your Imperial Star Destroyer,
and then youve got your Dreadnought Star Destroyer (AKA Super Star Destroyer)
and then youve got the fricken Death Star. - mikemehak, on 05/15/2009, -5/+15Hey guys, FYI, it's just a movie.
- DivisibleByZero, on 05/14/2009, -0/+9Well it stands to reason that there may eventually be an enterprise D in the new timeline.
- DAC1138, on 05/15/2009, -0/+9Yes, they changed the future. The Enterprise was constructed in Texas, not the San Fransisco shipyards.
- Kronos6948, on 05/15/2009, -0/+9@wild....
Ok, I'm a pretty big trek geek, but I don't get the in-joke. What did I miss? - warriorscot, on 05/14/2009, -1/+10USS Enterprise is ~335M and the current HMS Enterprise is ~90m.
So at 725m its pretty reasonable especially considering that a huge chunk of it is machine space and storage which would be necessary to support 100s of people for very long periods without the need to resupply. People need a great deal of Air, Water, Food and power just to live look at the size of the ISS and it only has a few people and resupplies regularly.
The size of star trek ships was always a little off in my opinion, even in the 24th century it seemed a little unbelievable. - tgc1, on 05/15/2009, -0/+9Oh heck no. You're talking about Trekkies, Star Wars people and Battlestar Galactica nerds. This is our whole life.
- URnotheonly1, on 05/14/2009, -1/+9build it...built it now.
- DavidFromCanada, on 05/14/2009, -1/+9Christ we posted the same thing at the same time.
- Peko, on 05/15/2009, -0/+8What you meant to say is:
Size is nothing compared to the power of the force. - Kronos6948, on 05/14/2009, -0/+8Exactly. I find it hard to believe that with the same proportions, that the new Enterprise is that much larger than the old.
- Tyrghast, on 05/14/2009, -2/+10Our first interstellar spacecraft will likely be even bigger.
- streak, on 05/15/2009, -1/+8Not hard to believe it all. The new one's better. It's bigger. Better. Bigger. Bigger. Better.
- smotpoker, on 05/15/2009, -1/+8@UselessTrivia
They had 'magical' anti-grav devices in every Star Trek movie and series, that is how the shuttle pods lift off. I'm inclined to believe star ships are constructed in space because 1. most cannot really travel in atmosphere (forget why exactly but it is mentioned at some point at least once or twice) 2. that is also where they are repaired since most cannot land and 3. saves time/effort with any technology or resources imported from other colonies/worlds (no need to bother landing on the planet, just dock and unload in space) - firesights, on 05/15/2009, -1/+8Borg Cube. 3 km's per side. 28 cubic kilometers in volume.
Boo yah. - Hraes, on 05/14/2009, -0/+7Yeah, chart's wrong.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 212 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is