flynavy
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:21 am



Many more images here : http://www.rfjason.com/?p=33
Change is: one airline, six continents!
 
AC773
Posts: 1700
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:03 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:31 am

It's settled then - we'll move the Pentagon to a spaceship! That ought to free up some choice real estate.  silly 
Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:41 am

What's amazing, is that in the grand scheme of things, the Enterprise-D wasn't even all that huge.

The original intent of the Romulan D'Deridex warbirds... was to be nearly doubt the size of the Enterprise-D. However, on screen, this size differential never materialized.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g52/UH60PilotIraq/Random%201/DDeridex.jpg

---------------------

Another oddity was the Klingon Bird-of-Preys.... which went through endless size changes, in order to fit the needs of the script. Sometimes the scale of the ship was barely big enough for a person to stand upright in, while other times they were bigger than the Enterprise-D!

...god I am such a nerd.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Springbok747
Posts: 4007
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:13 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:48 am

Enterprise still can't beat Galactica Big grin

http://www.shipschematics.net/bsg/images/colonial/battlestar_galactica.jpg
אני תומך בישראל
 
AirTranTUS
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:12 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:49 am

I always wanted to know the size of the Enterprise. Thanks for posting.
I love ASO!
 
flynavy
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:51 am

Another oddity was the Defiant's size - shown onscreen anywhere from 50m to 200m.
Change is: one airline, six continents!
 
SWISSER
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:31 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:26 am

I think I found the ultimate geekchart!
This is actually very interesting! look for the Saturn V rocket somewhere!
http://jyujin.de/~mdeininger/1180488234943.gif
What time is top of descent?
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8539
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:30 am

I can't believe nobody bothered to put either the Nostromo or Spaceball One on that chart.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
SWISSER
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:31 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:38 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 7):
I can't believe nobody bothered to put either the Nostromo or Spaceball One on that chart.

Yeah you're right, and the independance day ones as well...
What time is top of descent?
 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:53 am

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 6):
I think I found the ultimate geekchart!
This is actually very interesting! look for the Saturn V rocket somewhere!

Very nice, but I looked it over twice and can't find a Deathstar.
 
SWISSER
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:31 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:06 am

A Deathstar would be off chart I guess.
A milennium falcon just for the sake of it would be cool as well!

BTW,
what is that Nexx thing completely on the bottom right?
never heard of that one..
What time is top of descent?
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:16 am

theres a few mistakes on there...

most glaring:

from 2001 and 2010, the Alexi Leonov should be about 33% the length of the USS Discovery... yet the sizes given make it longer. 97.85 vs 102 meters.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
A340313X
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 9:03 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:58 am

The super star destroyer wins! Star Wars owns all the sci fis! That's not even including either of the death stars...
 
zanl188
Posts: 3443
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:31 am

Quoting A340313X (Reply 12):
The super star destroyer wins! Star Wars owns all the sci fis! That's not even including either of the death stars...

Star Treks Dysons Sphere trumps the Death Stars big time!!
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:33 am

I like this one.

 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13441
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:33 am

Quoting A340313X (Reply 12):
The super star destroyer wins! Star Wars owns all the sci fis!

Except - and I say this as a die hard Star Wars AND Star Trek fan - the Type X Phasers mounted on most Federation starships would eat through anything in the Star Wars universe, and the shielding on Star Trek ships would absorb just about any punishment the Star Wars ships could muster - they only used turbolasers which are weak by comparison.

Save for perhaps the Death Star's main gun, of course.

Yep, I'm a geek too.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13441
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:42 am

This one's my favorite...

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:48 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 15):
Except - and I say this as a die hard Star Wars AND Star Trek fan - the Type X Phasers mounted on most Federation starships would eat through anything in the Star Wars universe, and the shielding on Star Trek ships would absorb just about any punishment the Star Wars ships could muster - they only used turbolasers which are weak by comparison.

Too bad that's not true, according to people who have analyzed the movies and shows to an unbelievable level:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:32 pm



NERDS!
Go big or go home
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:47 pm

I love this thread.....I want that poster.....

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 6):
I think I found the ultimate geekchart!

well done...I'm looking for that now...

Quoting AA61Hvy (Reply 18):
NERDS!

Your point? Other than the one on top of your head?  Wink
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13441
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:58 pm

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 17):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 15):
Except - and I say this as a die hard Star Wars AND Star Trek fan - the Type X Phasers mounted on most Federation starships would eat through anything in the Star Wars universe, and the shielding on Star Trek ships would absorb just about any punishment the Star Wars ships could muster - they only used turbolasers which are weak by comparison.

Too bad that's not true, according to people who have analyzed the movies and shows to an unbelievable level:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/....html

I've done a fair bit of research on this myself - as I've said, I'm a diehard fan of both series - and after very close and careful analysis of what was posted at stardestroyer.net I've come to the conclusion that they're utterly full of crap.

First off - it's posted at STARDESTROYER.NET. Think the domain name might give a clue as to which way their "facts" will be spun?

Let's talk science. Heavy gun on a mere troop transport equaling 2.4 million megatons? Puh-leeze.

The U.S. Castle-Bravo thermonuclear detonation was the highest-yield U.S. test ever, at 15 megatons. That's 1000 times more destructive than the Fat Man and Little Boy implosion-type and gun-type nuclear weapons used on Japan in 1945. Ever seen footage of it? I have - and it's FAR more devastating than any blast from a ship-mounted gun in the Star Wars universe.

The Soviet Tsar Bomba detonation, the highest yield thermonuclear device ever detonated, was in the 50-100 megaton range, although most estimates have it at 65MT maximum. Again, FAR more deadly than anything shown as canon in Star Wars, save for the Death Star.


But you actually believe a simple troop transport's GUN is equal to many hundreds of thousands of times that force? Nope, sorry.

Want more info? Okay - the book being cited as the source for the Star Wars technological data is widely disputed as not being 'canon' and therefore inadmissable for use in comparisons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_versus_Star_Wars

Post AOTC:ICS era
The technology-related debate took a turn in 2002 after the publication of Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections, better known by its acronyms AOTC:ICS, EP2: ICS, or E2ICS. Dr. Curtis Saxton, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics and was previously known for his scholarly discussions of Star Wars technology, was hired by LucasFilm, Ltd. to do the research and technical write-ups for the book. The book had figures for Star Wars weaponry that confirmed many of the upper estimates of the pro-Wars advocates, which were far higher than what the pro-Trek side had been able to field.

The book was immediately controversial. Some pro-Trek debaters doubted the accuracy of the book, questioning the author's objectivity and personal integrity. Suspicions were raised in part because of the thanks offered by Dr. Saxton in the Acknowledgments section of his book to several prominent pro-Wars debaters. This led to allegations that the book itself was written in order to win the Star Trek vs Star Wars debate. Defenders of the book said that LucasFilm hired Dr. Saxton based on the strength of his earlier works, and that this was thus a tacit blessing of his firepower calculations. They also pointed to his education, which they argued made him more qualified to do the requisite mathematical and scientific analysis of the films than any previous technical writer of the Star Wars series.

The various communities have since divided into two groups, mostly identified along Star Wars / Star Trek party lines. The first group accepted Dr. Saxton's book as an accurate and valid part of Star Wars canon. Many taking this view held that the book decided the debate in favor of Star Wars. A number of pro-Trek debaters agreed and retired from the field. As a consequence, the debate receded into areas of esoterica or died out altogether in some communities.

The second group consisted of those who rejected the book for three main reasons. First, they doubted its accuracy, believing that many of the numbers were derived from research and from conclusions that they disagreed with. Second, they refused to consider technical books of this type as being genuine Star Wars canon. Finally, they stated that Dr. Saxton's book contradicted other sources of equal or higher authority, specifically the movies and their novelizations. Thus, they concluded that the book was inadmissible as evidence.



Now, here's the rub - all Star Wars weapons, even on capital ships, are LASERS. Star Trek weapons are PHASERS - basically lasers on steroids. From an episode of ST:TNG, a ship attacks the Enterprise-D with laser weaponry, causing much amusement to Cmdr. Riker, who points out that lasers cannot breach the Enterprise's shields.

This argument would seem to be cut-and-dried - but like anything else that's probably not ENTIRELY the case. I'm sure that others will have contrary info, and I'm okay with that - as I said, I love both series equally.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13441
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:00 pm

Quoting AA61Hvy (Reply 18):


NERDS!

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Guilty as charged.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
jhooper
Posts: 5560
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:15 pm

Interesting that the Pentagon is almost exactly the same size as the saucer section. Could somebody post an Enterprise-D to scale with the International Space Station or an A380?
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
 
MrChips
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:56 pm

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:26 pm

Quoting AA61Hvy (Reply 18):
NERDS!

You post at Airliners.net - that alone vaunts you into the upper echelons of nerd-dom. Big grin
Time...to un-pimp...ze auto!
 
ShyFlyer
Posts: 4698
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:38 pm

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:51 pm

Quoting Flynavy (Thread starter):

I'm kinda disappointed. I always envisioned the Enterprise D to be bigger for some reason. Dunno why, it's only supposed to accommodate, what, 1000 or so people?
I lift things up and put them down.
 
AirTranTUS
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:12 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:10 pm

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 20):
I've done a fair bit of research on this myself - as I've said, I'm a diehard fan of both series - and after very close and careful analysis of what was posted at stardestroyer.net I've come to the conclusion that they're utterly full of crap.

Star wars seems to me to have a lot more fantasy in it than Star Trek as well.
I love ASO!
 
SmithAir747
Posts: 1667
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:30 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:59 pm

How about the City Destroyers on the movie ID4-Independence Day? What about the Mother Ship?

These dwarf anything from Star Wars or Star Trek, both in size and in destructive power!

While watching that movie, I paid very close attention to the size and detail of the CIty Destroyers, but especially, the interior of the Mother Ship.

The typical City Destroyer saucer appeared to be just about as large as the target city (say, Manhattan and most of NYC); thus it was like a floating city. Has anyone ever speculated on its true size?
What would the interior of one of these have looked like? A hive?
Also, how could the main weapon (a huge ray gun) be powerful enough to incinerate an entire city?

Most fascinating to me was the Mother Ship--the size of a small moon! Inside, I noticed a blue-green haze, huge mountain-like structures (like hives), and huge platforms on which large cigar-shaped landing ships were boarded and launched in preparation for the invasion of Earth after the destruction of the cities. I also liked the way it could carry all those city-sized saucers on its underbelly. Has anyone speculated on the Mother Ship's true size? Or its transit speed between stars?

Are there detailed drawings of either the City Destroyer saucers or the Mother Ship from ID4? Exterior or interior? I would love to see those!

SmithAir747
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14)
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13441
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:18 pm

Quoting SmithAir747 (Reply 26):
How about the City Destroyers on the movie ID4-Independence Day? What about the Mother Ship?

These dwarf anything from Star Wars or Star Trek, both in size and in destructive power!

Not really. The city destroyers in ID4 are found on this chart:



At 24,000 meters it's bigger than the Executor(Super) Class Star Destroyer, but far smaller than the Death Star. As far as firepower goes, the ID4 ship appears to have full release of energy less than 1 megaton based on the fireball that consumes each city. That's FAR weaker than the firepower of any Star Trek vessels' photon torpedoes.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13441
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:51 pm

Here's 1701-D over Maho Beach at TNCM...  Wink

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1265/1701dtncmlo9.jpg
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13441
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:55 pm

Here's that chart again - sorry it got cut off. Click the link below :

http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison.xhtml

[Edited 2007-06-28 09:56:21]
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
Kieron747
Posts: 2461
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:17 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:10 pm

Great thread, thanks for posting, I want that poster!

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 10):
what is that Nexx thing completely on the bottom right?
never heard of that one..

I actually used to really enjoy the original pilot episodes of Lexx, but it went downhill after that. Some good special effects though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexx

Good to see the Super Star Destroyer is the biggest in the poster, although I'm sure the 2001 Discovery should look bigger.

Kieron747
Airliners.Net - The Jam Rag Of The Web.
 
airfoilsguy
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:28 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:38 pm

You people are all nerds. Of course I tried to make the ultimate geekchart my wallpaper. Don't try it, all your icons will magically disappear.  Smile
It's not a near miss it's a near hit!!
 
Kieron747
Posts: 2461
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:17 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:16 pm

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 24):
I'm kinda disappointed. I always envisioned the Enterprise D to be bigger for some reason.

I used to think the same. I remember being disappointed at just how small the command module of Discover was in 2001. Considering the pod at the from sits one man comfortable, the ship seems really small.



Also, anyone remember in Star trek The Motion Picture when they walk across the saucer section to V'ger? That seemed far too small aswell.

An example of the smallness of NCC 1701-A is when Khan attacks the torpedo bay.



The deck being hit is just about the size of a pod docking port, the pod being able to accommodate standing men.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y18/kieron77/ent.jpg

I always wished they were bigger as a kid.

Anyway, again to all you fools who say the Federation could kick the Empire's ass. No way, remember, the Sith have THE FORCE.  Wink

Kieron747
Airliners.Net - The Jam Rag Of The Web.
 
jamincan
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:28 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:24 pm

With all this SW v. ST debate, this is probably relevant:
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:07 pm

Quoting MrChips (Reply 23):
You post at Airliners.net - that alone vaunts you into the upper echelons of nerd-dom. Big grin

Yeah, but I'm only an airplane nerd  Wink
Go big or go home
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:15 pm

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 24):
I'm kinda disappointed. I always envisioned the Enterprise D to be bigger for some reason. Dunno why, it's only supposed to accommodate, what, 1000 or so people?

Well if you think about it - how many people work in the pentagon? Roughly 23,000 military/civilian personnel, and roughly 3,000 support personnel. So easy 25,000 people working in a building 5 stories tall and roughly the same surface area of the saucer section of the Enterprise.

...so 1,000 people in the Eprise-D is quite spacious!

Quoting SmithAir747 (Reply 26):
What about the Mother Ship?

Unfortunately there is really no good size reference for this ship. The exterior received very little air time, and at the beginning of the film, when it is asked, "how big is it?", the generals reported that it was "roughly 1/4 the size of the moon."

Is that just the main body? Or was that estimate including the two large spikes the protruded from the bottom? If so, then the estimate is false, because the only true reference is to the actual ship hull. And also, for argument's sake, if we say the main hull of the mothership was the size of a quarter of our moon.... it has to be one of the weakest alien ships ever to grace the big screen!

Think about it - it was totally obliterated by a 1 megaton warhead. Perhaps our boys got lucky and ignited the bomb near some major power source, the ship would have to be made out of paper and wood!

That movie was riddled with technical errors.

Quoting A340313X (Reply 12):
The super star destroyer wins! Star Wars owns all the sci fis! That's not even including either of the death stars...

Size certainly is not indicative of power. When we're talking about sheer power, Star Trek wins with the Trilithium Torpedo (featured in Star Trek VII Generations) - even when comparing it against the Death Star.

The Death Star's power is incredible, but not as great as the Trilithium Torpedo. When the Death Star destroyed Alderaan, the planet's destruction took about 5 seconds, it looked similar to earth in size, and the rubble moved at about 2 planet diameters per second.

energy = 0.5 x mass of planet x rubble velocity^2

= 0.5 x 5 x 10^24 x 2,500,000^2

= 1.5625 �-- 10^37 JOULES!!

In another thread NorthStarDC4M disagreed with my estimate and said it was closer to 2.4*10^32 with a max range of 420,000km. Either way, it's a very destructive weapon.

HOWEVER, look at Doctor Soran's Trilithium Torpedo: His weapon was encased in a typical photon torpedo casing, and could stop the fusion of a star. The result would be the star collapsing in on itself under its own weight. The resulting shock wave will eliminate anything in the system - including entire planets.

If you look at the movie - the entire planet is destroyed in the span of like 10 seconds... and that's just a FRACTION of the total energy of the weapon!!

If the shock wave was spherical in shape, and the planet was earth sized, that means only a small fraction hit the planet.

Assuming the planet was 90,000,000miles away from the sun (I used this number because it's a nice round number close to Earth's orbit), we can figure out the size of the shock wave when it hit Veridian III.

Surface area of a sphere (4pr2), radius=90,000,000miles: 4 X 3.14 X 90,000,000^2 = 101,736,000,000,000,000miles^2. (Or 101.736 quadrillion square miles)

Surface Area of Veridian III (I am assuming it has an equivalent size to Earth) = 3.14 X 4,000^2 = 50,240,000miles^2.

So... correct me if I am wrong... but Veridian III had a surface area of 50,240,000 square miles, compared to the 101.736 quadrillion square miles of the shock wave when it reached the planet.

50,240,000 / 101,736,000,000,000,000 = 4.93e^-10!

.000000000493% of the total energy of the shock wave was consumed by the planet!

That's amazing. And the second weapon was launched from the Veridian III, so it's range is at least 144,000,000kms (compared to the max of 420,000km of the Death Star.)

...So without a doubt, the trilithium torpedo is the most destructive weapon in terms of power.

Quoting Jamincan (Reply 33):

An interesting line from the movie...

A the mark during the video, the Death Star fires it's primary weapon, and Worf reports, "Captain the enemy is firing, 400gigawatts of particle energy!" To which Captain Picard emphatically orders, "Lets get the hell out of here!"

(Now the line was taken from the episode featuring the Husnock, where in the first engagement, they fired weak bursts. But in the second engagement, they struck hard with "400 gigawatts of jacketed streams of positrons and anti-protons.")

400 gigawatts?

Seriously, that's the equivalent fire power of dropping about [b]TEN[/b 500lbs bombs! You're telling me that a B-1B could take down the Enterprise's shields with only 1/8 of their bomb load!?

This was sometimes a problem with Star Trek (which I like far more than Star Wars) - they would spout off techno-babel that sometimes made NO sense! Unlike Star Wars which offered very little technical data or scientific basis.

Although when you look at Star Trek, and its four series (I don't count ST:Enterprise which was an abomination) and look how consistent the science writing was, it's a very impressive feat.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:17 pm

ok well since we want to get into symantics...

Dr Soran's torpedo wasn't the thing that created the bang... it was a fusion inhibitor and caused the stars to go nova, it didin't in itself cause that blast. I think therefore it is not a comparison to the directed energy of the Death Star's main SuperLaser. I mean we could always start talking about the Timeship of the Crenim... i mean the directed energy needed to cause the temporal changes that thing did would be astronomical...

And then theres always the Expanded Universe of Star Wars where the 2nd death star did go and blow up a planet before the rebels got to it, and did it with 20x the power of the original death star... but anyways...

The Vorlon planet killer could whoop the Death Star's behind anyday  Smile


nuff said.  Smile
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13441
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:38 pm

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 36):
And then theres always the Expanded Universe of Star Wars


...which is not considered canon, and is therefore inadmissable.

[Edited 2007-06-29 10:39:18]
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:28 pm

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 37):
Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 36):
And then theres always the Expanded Universe of Star Wars


...which is not considered canon, and is therefore inadmissable.

What about the books in Star Trek? Are they all canon? I remember one where another planet killer was found, supposedly tougher than the one encountered by the Constellation and the Enterprise. It went on to hit Warp 10 and was thus scattered into nothingness on its way to destroy some more Borg ships.

-R
Living the American Dream
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:04 pm

as far as i can tell the charts were created from this webpage, which is nerd heaven:
http://www.merzo.net/
10=2
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13441
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:16 pm

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 38):
What about the books in Star Trek? Are they all canon?

ST:TNG Technical Manual is. I believe a few others are as well.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
hawaiian717
Posts: 3139
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: NCC-1701-D Size In Perspective

Sun Jul 01, 2007 2:01 am

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 38):
What about the books in Star Trek? Are they all canon?

None of the novels are, though I think some consider Pathways to be at least semi-canon as it was written by one of Voayger's co-creators. Some of the "non-fiction" reference books, like the one EA CO AS mentioned, are considered canon as well, but for the most part, only what you see on TV or in the movies is considered canon.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], DiscoverCSG, Scorpio and 35 guests