Is the Original Enterprise BIG Enough?? Analysis!!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 พ.ย. 2024
- The size controversy of the Enterprise is going nuts! Some people think bigger is better always, while others are staunchly against this notion. Let’s do some calculations and find out!!
See Trekyards’ analysis as well; tell them Resurrected Starships Sent you: • Discovery Enterprise S...
NEW Stuff on Patreon including 3d models and renders! Got to / resurrected
Want to support this channel and have need for a CG spaceship - new ships are now available at the Resurrected Starships CGTrader store! www.cgtrader.c...
Music credit:
DOS-88 - Checking Manifest [Synthwave]
• DOS-88 - Checking Mani...
NEW Stuff on Patreon including 3d models and renders! Got to www.patreon.com/resurrected
Want to support this channel and have need for a CG spaceship - new ships are now available at the Resurrected Starships CGTrader store! www.cgtrader.com/3d-models?author=loststarships
I served aboard an aircraft carrier, the USS America (CV-66) for more than 3.5 years. She was 1,147.5 ft from the bow to stern, with a 148 ft. beam at the waterline and 248 ft beam at the flightdeck. Not counting the island, there were at least 6 decks used for berthings, galley and messdeck, labs, repair shops and the hanger bay. The Island was 6 decks alone which was used for navigation and control. Then there was an additional 4 decks below the 3rd deck that were used for storerooms, ammunition magazines and the ship's boilers & engines.
We had a ship's company of nearly 2,700 people permanently assigned just to operate the ship. When underway, when you add the Air Wing personnel and the Admiral's Staff, the number onboard ranged between 5,500 and 6,500 people. This is non-wartime manning. If we were at war, then the ship was equipped to handle up to 10,000 people for long periods of time. Despite the numbers of people on board while the ship was underway, there were more places than you can imagine where people rarely, if ever, went.
So, a starship of approximately the same length with a crew of only 430 people? Considering that the Enterprise of the UFP more than likely recycled resources in ways to make a 21st century tree hugger shed a tear in envy, a vessel the size of NCC-1701 would be more than roomy enough for 430 to go explore the galaxy in style.
ABE3(AW),
V-2 Waist Catapults
USS America (CV-66)
1981 - 1984
Thanks for using imperial measure.
@@3dtexan890 Ok, you want metric, here it is. An Arleigh Burke class destroyer with a length of 155 m and width at the widest point of
18 m carries a crew of 329. This includes supplies, weapons, recreational areas, galleys, and a hanger for two helicopters.
Ty for your service!
Thanks for sharing the insight, very cool.
First, thank you for your service and HOOAH! Second, GO ARMY BEAT NAVY! ;) Army - 95B: 1987-1991
Matt Jeffries was an aviation engineer and historian. He knew what he was doing when he designed this ship.
948ft. TOS. Movies. One thousand ft. or 305 meters.
There’s a CGI expert and designer who took a bunch of TOS and refit sets and put them into a 3D Model of the ship. It would seem the ship needed to be 10 to 30% bigger to make everything fit.
Exactly. It's a really well thought out design.
not really
@@IchigoKurosakicool Yeah. Relaly.
As an ex submarine sailor, it's *WAYYY* more than enough!
Tell that to the crew of a Nimitz.
My wife and I went on board the Nautilus. Now that is a tight squeeze for the required crew. At least on Starships nobody had to hot bunk or have torpedoes stowed under your bunk.
@@4thdoctor284 Back in the early 70s, when I was serving aboard a missile sub, in our off time we would often help out with repairs and maintenance on some of the other boats that were docked in Groton. One of those boats was the Nautilus. A few years ago my wife, daughter, youngest son and myself toured the Nautilus. As we made our way through the Ops compartment I pointed out the various pieces of gear that I had worked on. My daughter exclaimed, "Gee Dad", - and I thought that she was going to be impressed, until she continued, "You're so old that the stuff that you worked on is in a museum!"
Ouch!!! Burn!!!!
The Nautilus was in Conn. at the Submarine Museum a few years ago. I think that she is permanently berthed there. Anyways being a sub junkie since Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea which I think was my wife's only exposure to a sub btw I had to go to the museum. Next door is a Naval facility and she turned into there by accident first and was stopped at the gate and redirected. Once on the casing of the Nautilus she was surprised how small the hatchway was to get in compared to the outer size of the boat. They had the officer's quarters behind a plexiglass panel with mannequins and the description plaques. And the Mess and galley too. She was surprised how cramped it was and they had a sailor on board acting as tour guide. She told him that she thought it would be alot roomier onboard since I watched Voyage all of the time and the Seaview had so much more room inside. He had a good laugh at that one and said he watched the show too. You could drive a compact car around inside the Seaview he told her. They had the aft compartments closed off from the public and I had to tell her it was due to security reasons for the reactor room which I'm not sure how such an old nuke sub would still have any classified areas but it was still probably somewhat hot back in the reactor room section.
@MichaelKingsfordGray I never claimed to be a hero, just a bubble head...
The whole time I'm looking at this Starship to Winnebago comparison, I'm just sitting here and going. "Great. The Enterprise compared to Spaceball's Eagle 5."
dink dink! dink dink dink! dink! dink dink, dink dink dink!
LOL!
Next Video: Star Trek VS Space Balls, Who Would Have The Last Laugh?
MAY THE SCHWARTZ BE WITH YOUUUUUUUU!!!
Important question: can the Enterprise go to Plaid?
@@SamCogley Yes, but only if the Sensors have not been jammed.
Fortunately, Kirk saw the overcrowding on his ship and took action by sending a lot of redshirts down to a hostile planet.
Red Shirts are known for being a invasive species of large pests, who reproduce rapidly. It's always healthy to let a number of them onto a dangerous planet and die, to avoid overpopulation.
Kirk's own private Eugenics War....
I approve of this comment.
I started rewatching the original series a couple years go, which I hadn't seen since I was a kid, and was astonished just how awful of a captain Kirk was. Dude basically continuously gets his crew killed because he's too busy being a spoiled manchild to do his job.
If I recall, one of the earliest episodes featured a great example of this, where a whole bunch of crew get killed simply because Kirk refuses to listen to his crew.
@@seigeengine I would like more details on this.
Funny thing is, the Enterprise has always been this size. I never thought she was too small. When I was a kid I remember getting lost on the USS Franklin Roosevelt, a Midway Class carrier. NCC 1701 is plenty big.
Makes the Enterprise-D a monster in size compared to its crew members. No wonder you rarely see people in the corridors in the show.
When TNG was in development the idea was for the ship to be on a multi-year mission far beyond the borders of the Federation. The TNG Technical Manual states this as the intended role of the ship. The crew was supposed to be several thousand, not just 1000. Roddenberry changed this after Probert had already designed the Galaxy Class.
Seen in this way, the Galaxy class was more of a luxury cruiser.
@@nether322 I wonder after the Dominion war the Galaxy class should be retired from starfleet service and instead become civilian cruise liners
@@RocketHarry865 nah that’s the job for the Excelsiors that remain
The thing I always wonder and that isn't talked about in any canon source is weither those 1000 are just the crew or the crew plus their families and civilians.
Sources state it as a crew of 1000 (and the semi-official technical manual states an evacuation limit of around 4000) but that could mean "1000 people on board" or "1000 starfleet personell on board" and we know that there are more than just starfleet personell on the ship.
The ship might as well have a crew of around 1000, but if we add more persons who aren't part of starfleet we can come up with any number we like, depending on how many "civilians" we add.
Love this video.
What people need to remember is that Star Trek was about 20 years after WWII. Roddenberry and other people who worked on Star Trek had participated in WWII or who lived through it. Matt Jefferies served on a variety of bombers during WWII as an engineer understood operating in limited spaces and maximizing those spaces. Not just living space. Applying those real-world experiences to his designs. You may recall the Pilot Enterprise story with Captain Pike had a larger bridge module and a smaller crew completement. Later revision of the TOS Enterprise under Captain Kirk showed the smaller bridge module and the familiar crew of 400+. It is obvious that there was real thought and effort to make the ship realistic to the size of the crew and the mission and proposed tech it utilized.
Privrf hence, “Jefferies tubes”?
@@TheRealNormanBates precisely. for a look behind the scenes, get hold of the book "The Making of Star Trek" (1968) by Stephen E. Whitfield.
www.amazon.com/Making-Star-Trek-Stephen-Whitfield/dp/0345340191
@@myrryxmas ..."The Making of Star Trek" is an excellent book...
Wondered who the Jeffery was that designed those tubes. I guess they were based on the crawl tube in the B29 bomber
L
Walter “Matt” Jefferies once talked about how he consulted with real Navy Personnel to be sure he made the ship large enough for crew and everything else. At the end of his research he decided to add more than a third to the minimum size. He later came up with the Blueprints and Manuals that were sold back 1970s.
I could cry remembering those. I had it all
@@chrissmith7669 I lost track of two Star Trek books. TOS books...so disappointing.
Franz Joseph Designs did the blueprints and technical manual. Jeffries did establish the size and crew complement. This information was first published in the "Making of Star Trek" published in 1968 IIRC.
I had the pleasure of meeting Matts brother Richard here in Dallas after he wrote a biography about Matt. He gave me a copy of the book. I still have it around here somewhere.
Hell ya the original Enterprise was big enough. As Scotty said once, “NCC 1701. No bloody A, B, C, or D”. I love your videos keep it up
i see what you did there
Yup, sufficiently large and crew comfort concept is somewhat military style standards of ww2 till the 60s. There are probaby a lot more storage space for spare parts, food and water than for crew quarters. Imagine Christopher Columbus type scenario in space
We only see the officers quarters, never the petty officers or enlisted personnel
Hollywood writers, as a rule, have no sense of scale. Roddenberry served in the Army Air Force - he could extrapolate what the size of a ship needed to be to serve it's purpose. In real life and in realistic fiction ships are as big as they need to be to serve their function and no larger. The largest warships in the world, the Ford class, are still as small as they can get away with being while still carrying the planes desired for them. Can we build larger? Well, yeah - there are several cruise ships that are much larger than an aircraft carrier, and oil tankers are larger still - but why make a carrier that big when you can make 2?
EDIT: The service Roddenberry served in has been updated.
He was Army Air Corps.
He was a bomber pilot.
Especially when for the same money, two carrier battle groups are better than one, and move more adroitly under attack. You can have one carrier battle group at either end of the Taiwan Straits and complicate the Chinese invasion plan no end.
gene served in the united states army air force as a bomber pilot.
You have hit the nail on the head. I really could not have said it any better.
I lived on an essex aircraft carrier. The crew was in forecastle and other sections of the ship. That said, it housed over 80 aircraft, bombs and missiles, food, other stores, offices, labs, library, barber shop, cafeteria, officer’s mess, bank, post office, radio dept, engineering dept...huge engineering dept ...and more, and over 3600 men. Literally, a floating city. I could walk in the passage way...any passage way and have plenty of space. In other words, it had all that, and plenty of empty space. I think the 1701 is big enough to house 430 people plus stores, etc. Way big enough.
Kelly Martin that sounds awesome once one gets used to it. Thanks for your service
And all 1701 had were three shuttles.
@@danielmahoney1546 lmao!!
3 x 8 hour shifts would mean two thirds of the crew at any given time would be asleep or idle in recreation so.... Actual movement of ships population would be at most 200 across the whole ship. You'd pretty surprised how a quiet a place with a 1000 operating personel can be let alone 430.
The old Connie bless her is more than enough to do her job. and she's a pretty ship too.
Don't forget that there was, at one time, a complete set of deck-by-deck plans of the Constitution Class heavy cruiser. It had all the rooms laid out and it showed there was plenty of room for everything. Deck 7, the topmost of the two largest decks, held the sickbay and transporter rooms among other things. If you can find a set of those plans, there were 12 pages in all, it is well worth the money is well as the Technical Manual for the original series. Yes, I own both. :)
I have a set of these that I received as a gift while I was in high school in the ‘70s
I think you make a very convincing argument, enough so that it seems almost certain there was intent behind the size of the TOS Enterprise. Not only is it large enough, it's just the right size for the crew complement and multi-year missions. Using an RV as a comparison for living space is also a very good and vivid image.
Dunno, they are pretty cramped.
But a lot of the space is taken up by the "chompers" and the Omega 13.
That, my friend, is hilarious!
Don't forget the Carbonite project.
That’s it?!?
... I was expecting something more complicated.
That episode was poorly written!
Now I'm going to watch this movie.
The original "Star Trek: Technical manual" shows exactly the layout for the saucer section and most of the rest of the ship. 400+ crew would be more than comfortable for a long voyage. Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country" showed both galleys and bunk rooms. The TNG Technical manual and "Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise gives great info on the layouts of both the Enterprise A (Scotty's book) and the Enterprise D.
Kris Gonynor definitely. There's more than enough evidence in secondary canon to say the Constitution class ships were designed for 400+ crew for lengths of 3-5 years.
+The Man From Krypton
_"definitely. There's more than enough evidence in secondary canon to say the Constitution class ships were designed for 400+ crew for lengths of 3-5 years."_
Adding to that, _The Star Fleet Technical Manual_ - specifically - is actually primary canon for the TOS Enterprise.
Idazmi7. No, its not.
Game books are exactly what are needed for any good SiFi because gamers are so picky about details.
+DrewLSsix
_"No, its not."_
Yes it is. It was signed into canon by Gene himself in 1974. _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_ and many other elements reference it heavily in both visuals and dialogue. The USS Entente NCC-2120 is directly referenced in dialogue and in technical readouts, for example. What appears on screen is considered canon, remember, and those manuals have definitely appeared on screen.
This is the sort of thing only ultra-nerds argue about and fret over. I can't believe someone decided to make this an issue, and someone else did the math to settle it.
I enjoyed every minute of it.
So did I good sir, so did I...
I think it is a complement to the show and the 'world building' that people are prepared to go along with the conceit.
My Nerd is smarter than your Nerd.
So there! 😋
Something worth mentioning: the crew in the original Pilot “The Cage”, canonically ten years before the series and before a major refit, was around 200. It was raised to about 430 for the series for unknown reasons...perhaps someone pointed out that the ship was in fact too big for such a small crew?
Or maybe they increased the size of the science department and needed more people for the five year mission.
maybe the cage was at the end of it's 5 year mission and the 200 was after they'd gone through all the red shirts? ;)
@@briandavion That would certainly explain Pike's stress. If he lost half his crew.
@@3Rayfire Crew wear out, maybe a specialized mission profile, it really seemed like the federation kept adding more crew and specialists as time went by.
@@Eshanas And later on reduced them again. The Voyager is about as long as the original Enterprise, but has a crew of about 150, slightly above 1/3 of the Enterprise. Is that just because of technical advancement and automation, or part of the mission profile. The Voyager was meant to do a short tour before they got blasted across the galaxy and the Enterprise was on a 5 year deep space mission.
In the same way it could be that whatever mission Pike was on required 200 crew and what Kirk did required 430. Maybe Pike had more of a skeleton crew because the ship was new and they avoided sending too many people out, or during that mission starfleet realized that they needed more personell.
Very well done.
Im nearly 60 now, but when i was a kid my folks gave me a gift of the Star Trek USS Enterprise NCC-1701 blueprints, which I looked at as pure gold at the time (I still have them and cherish them still). Shortly after receiving them and learning what they gave as the Enterprises' length (it was 900 and some odd feet as I recall) I decided to go out in the nearby field and measure out and mark these dimensions so as to have a visual reference as to just how big that wonderful ship was. It was a fun undertaking for a young lad who adored Star Trek and dreamed of being on that ship. Well, that visual reference told me one thing... that the Enterprise was/is one big ship!!
Thanks again... very well done.
My name is Reid and I also have the blueprints and tech manuals sitting in a place of honor. Enterprise is plenty big enough.
Yup, I too have a set of these blueprints; wonderful documents
947 feet long. I still have my copy of those blueprints too. I enjoyed exploring every deck when I first got them. I don't want to be a party pooper but there is one big mistake in them.
Well...they were gold,
@@trentrock3210
Well, gee, thanks!
And that one mistake was?....
Yep, Mat Jeffries knew what he was doing. It's a beautiful ship, and always will be.
You should take the train I take everyday. We fit people where no one has fit people before. 🤣
300m or 1000ft Constitution should be more then enough in size for a 400-500 crew and i would dare say, not just for 6 month missions, but even a year or longer, unless crew fatigue becomes a major issue. Today's carriers are not really bigger in volume, and they can easily accommodate 5k+ people, plus the supplies, plus the aircraft and the ordnance on top of that. I would say a classical Constitution should not just fit 500 crew, but be able to handle a couple of thousand refugees in an emergency, for short periods of time of course.
450 regular crew with the ability to hold upwards to 1000 or more in an emergency. SOunds about right.
During the production of the Original Series (with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy), in order to give everyone an impression of how big (or how small) the ENTERPRISE was, they superimposed an overhead view of it over the USS ENTERPRISE (CVAN 65) which was about the same size. They may have also superimposed it over the Paramount Lot as well. (Or was that last the 1701-D?)
One of the producers of Next Generation had 1701-D superimposed on a map of the Paramount lot hanging in his office according to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. I have heard that the size of the ship on the original series was to be equivalent to a US Navy aircraft carrier of the 1960's.
dousent a career have a very large support fleet ? including a supply ships ?
ilejovcevski79. Except thats not what on screen canon says.
OKAY to all of you people who just LOVE to point out that the original Enterprise didn't have chefs, they had food replicators...ACTUALLY to YOUR ACTUALLIES!! - NO, they had some alcoves where food came out, but they are NOT food replicators which do not appear until The Next Generation. And if I were captain of a Constitution class, I would definitely have a real chef and kitchen on my ship, as seen in Star Trek VI, to suppliment whatever generic food creation tech is onboard. And yes you always need some storage, even of raw materials, even with replicators or full water recycling.
They did make kilotons of mistakes when designing the Star Trek Enterprise starship, mainly there being only one bathroom aboard a 280m ship! Judging by its size, there should have been at least 30 bathrooms aboard the Star Trek Enterprise!
One mystery about the Star Trek Enterprise and other starships of the series is how they generate artificial gravity. I'm far more used to science fiction spaceships and spacesteads that use rotating portions to simulate gravity, but Star Trek seems to have no such centrifugal artificial gravity.
Everything is made of 💩, though!
@@numberjackfiutro7412 they mention Gravity Plating several times in the Series, so by that time they will have found a way to create artificial gravity without rotation.
Despite claims to the contrary by the "powers that be", from a technical standpoint I don't see how the food dispensers in the original series could have been anything other than food replicators. But replicator units that simply had doors that popped open when the food was done. Perhaps it was just a more primitive kind of replicator in that regard. By that l just mean that they perhaps had to have a small door to prevent people from being exposed to radiation while the food was being replicated. Similar in a way to a microwave. However the speed with which people get their food, always within a matter of seconds, after inserting the disk, regardless of what they order, proves beyond a doubt in my opinion that it just MUST be a food replicator of SOME sort.
In "Charlie X", Kirk speaks with the chef, about the "real turkeys" in the ovens. Ovens means a galley, which means cooks! And in "The Corbomite Maneuver", McCoy says the "power was off in the galley."
I always loved the simplicity of the original ENTERPRISE !
She's a beautiful and timeless.
While I prefer the refit design over it, the original is truly timeless.
Utterly FANTASTIC episode. Thanks for the shout out! Keep up the great work! Maybe a collaboration should be in our futures! 😉
Trekyards I would love to! Maybe you, me, and Sam can create a fan design or something. :)
+Resurrected Starships
This video totally rofflestomps some of the comments I made on the Trekyards channel. Thanks! 😥
OMG fans actually working together???? lol say it aint so!!! lol
you know what I don't get according to you the ships have enough to fill thousands of people.....but in the DS9 time travel episode they made it clear that they over packed those old vessels. Lets take The Defiant for example, 24th century version not the one from TOS, it has a crew of what 60-70 crewmen at 150ish meters. By the 24th century they found comforts that were not available on a starship in the 23rd. Scotty in Relics freaked about the size of his room and the ship was what twice the size but some how held up enough people that you rarely see crowed corridors ( which always took me out of the experience) I always felt that the Enterprise (and the other connie ships) may have been the most advanced class that Starfleet ever created (at the time of its launch) but by the time Kirk was in charge his ship was 2 decades old...you mean to tell me that Starfleet just didn't innovate for 20 years?
There's a good thread on Trekbbs about this very topic, including if there was mean't to be one or two decks in the saucer rim, and deck heights.
If anyone has played around with games like Space Engineers. (Or just watched some videos of it). You'd get a sense of just how much *space* is inside even a roughly 300m ship from a 1st person perspective. It's one thing to see it from the outside or a few select 'sets' from TV and the movies. But it's totally different when you can walk around inside a scaled approximation and realize just how many rooms you can really fit inside a ship like the Enterprise.
And remember the Ent-D is more than twice as big.
I once built a 1km freighter. 1000m long x 100 m tall and 50 wide which went to 100 meters wide at the fore and aft sections. Thing had so much room in the habitable spaces that I had no idea what to put in them. Never finished it because this was like a year ago when it wasn't optimized. Kept crashing the game.
But 100% You can cram a lot in a 200 meter tin can, even if you have to waste a third of the volume.
I walk to work down a really long, wide, straight road to my job, and tried to imagine one of my own "chisel blade shaped" sci-fi ship designs, of 1500m hovering above it. When I got home and Google mapped it, that road was only just over half the length the ship would really be. Some of the modest warehouses and offices on either side of the road could do backflips inside it!
Man... i kinda wanna download it again now.
i was always too lazy to build something large though. Plus, my pc is kinda shit, struggles at running too big creations.
I just wish I could put more in those 2x2m block spaces and not have to waste a whole block between decks
I did download it now. Theres apperently an option to disable airtightness. That helps my struggling pc quite a lot.
I think the size design of starfleet vessels in the original Star Trek was just fine and they need to stop messing with it or Star Trek will become the next Star Wars
Sadly, I think that's the intention.
In modern ships, the advancing technology is steadily taking up more space.
300 meters are already a joke for a spaceship.
If one aligns a ship to the utmost autonomy one needs of all systems, plants and facilities which are important Multiple redundancy.
Only the main energy supply should be minimal double, if not triple.
This with regard to ships that are to operate for several years alone without any maintenance and spare parts.
+Sylvia Rohge
_"In modern ships, the advancing technology is steadily taking up more space. 300 meters are already a joke for a spaceship."_
No spaceship that large has ever been constructed. You also did not specify the mission or crew complement, which would strongly affect these calculations.
_"This with regard to ships that are to operate for several years alone without any maintenance and spare parts."_
The Enterprise receives both maintenance and spare parts, and can manufacture spare parts on-board with it's synthesizers.
Another reason why I and everyone I know has "Walked Away". TOS keeps on giving!
Star Trek Theory I'd argue Star Wars is far more "White traditionalism" than Star Trek ever was; Tolkien with Transwarp, you might say. Of course, it drew some inspiration from Japanese cinema, too, but the last people who pumped up White traditionalism at the expense of Jews didn't mind Japan either.
Star Trek 6 TUD revealed several lower ranking crew members sharing bunks, kind of like barracks. This would drastically give a lot more space for other essential parts of the ship.
So I was in the navy and while I was in they were retro fitting some of the older ships. Essentially, the technology that was used when these ships were built had shrunk over the decade or two since construction. Tech that used to take an entire room could now be on a single computer. What they did with the extra room available? I think they made it into crew lounge areas, gym space and stuff like that. Now imagine how small future technology might be and you can reasonably assume that they wouldn’t need a ton of space for sensors and all that. Or at least that’s my guess.
*"They must have secret hyperjets on that thing."*
*"Ludicrous Speed - GO!"*
While the replicator technology of the original Constitution class star ship was not as sophisticated as the Galaxy class; it still worked. So with the ability to take trash, waste, and broken or parts and break them down and replicate everything necessary to cloth, feed, and medicate the crew and make spare parts; they could stay out for very long periods of time.
Probably only antimatter, loss of crew, or major damage and/or loss of ship hull or frame would require returning to a star base and antimatter could probably be shipped on drone transports to the general vicinity of the star ship and then sent back after unloading.
+old time farm boy Actually, the NCC-1701 had a hydroponic garden and a galley, as well as food synthesizers (which were the replacement for the protein resequencers used on the NX-01). Replicators weren't invented until much later, almost another century.
Even though the Enterprise was on a 5-year mission, it had to return to starbase more often than that, *at least* once every three years. During this time, they would refuel the antimatter and Deuterium storage, refurbish or replaced parts of the warp core, perform a neutron purge on the warp coils, *and* most importantly restock the "gray goo" used by the food synthesizers, etc.
(Once replicators were invented, the ship could recycle your dishes, silverware, and uneaten food, returning it to "gray goo". But this process was not 100% efficient, so eventually the supply would have to be replenished.)
memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Portal:Main
In the halloween episode, it was stated that they could produce all of the precious gems that they wanted which, of course, meant they were no longer precious and the aliens were wasting their time trying to bribe them with gems, gold, or much anything else that was once considered scarce. So they were able, during the original series, to synthesize (i.e. replicate) most whatever they wanted.
Deuterium was what the bussard collectors on front of the warp nacelles collected and processed as the ship traveled through space so, except for the initial supply to get started on, they could easily replenish that on the go. Anti-deuterium required special equipment to produce and simply could not be scooped up from open space.
The hydroponics was mostly to help recycle the air and keep it fresh as well as to supplement synthesized (i.e. replicated) food and provided the crew with a place to be near plants instead of the mostly sterile rooms and corridors of the ship and to perhaps provide familiar plant based foods to help them survive in case they had to separate the saucer and land on a planet.
The Federation also put star bases next to regions that they wanted star fleet to start exploring to provide a base of operations for supplies, repairs, or whatever contingency that came up.
Replicators being invented much later than transporters makes zero sense. The transporter is doing the exact same thing as a replicator when it reconstructs the transported person or object at the other end - the differences are its ability to reconstruct at a distance from the transporter itself, to break down an object for transportation as well as reconstructing it, and to reconstruct based on a scanned object rather than a programmed blueprint.
It is likely that transporters are much more expensive to operate then replicators. Also we know for sure during TOS they are very dangerous.
Exactly what a food synthesiser is, and how food is delivered, have varied depending on accounts, I think.
People who think the Enterprise is "too small" have never served on a ship... Or camped...
i also think most people havent seen a gigantic ship at night time & realised the visuals on screen are completely & utterly wrong. giant morphing black blobs of lights. thats what they should look like. the best example i give people is photos of cruise ships at night time.
@@pepesworld2995 Keep in mind that with cruise ships at night and from a distance, you also have several other things affecting the light - atmospheric distortions/lensing, the reflection of the sea and both fog and the ship's own exhaust affecting how the light dissipates.
Not to say that the depictions in the shows are correct, but space is such a different environment that I don't think we can really say how it'll look until we actually have cruise ships in space, and my guess is that we're still hundreds of years away from that being a common sight.
@@fisk0 well yeah thats why i say its the best example i can think of. on a clear night atmospheric distortions arent gonna play a very big role. to be fair even a small cruise ship when you take a photo of it will look all warpy & blobby. its a good reference because there are lots of photos of cruise ships online and they like to show off their boats in nice conditions
@@fisk0 If it's facing the sun it'll be bright as day.
@Stripey Arse if your shit doesnt fit in your issued duffel it stays on the peir
0:25
Let me stop you there. Yes, its 'large enough', as it was designed by someone who actually knew what they were doing and not an artist.
I don't recalled the folks at Desilu (and later Paramount) being naval architects... or rocket-scientists... or physicists... or even common architects.
They __were__, in fact, artists.
@@its1110 Matt Jeffries was an aeronautics engineer.
Which is somebody who knows construction design like this.
Knowing what you're doing and being an artist is mutually exclusive?
Making ships arbitrarily gigantic is a really bad habit scifi shows seem to have of late. As a rule a military ship is the smallest it can be while carrying the weapons and equipment it needs to do it's mission, so if a ship is absolutely gigantic then it needs to have something on board that can't be any smaller.
Exactly. A smaller ship = less maintenance cost, less fuel cost, and a smaller target: all of those are good things.
Right. If your ship needs to be 3km long to manage its keel-mounted hypervelocity railgun, then so be it - but otherwise why are you making the damn thing so big? Tactical flexibility usually suggests numerous smaller military assets.
Now, with hyper accurate weapons and shields that require vast power supplies to maintain I can see a doctrine that strongly leans towards mid-large capital ships over frigates and fighters, but even so there's no point in building cities in space unless they offer a considerable tactical advantage over 10 smaller vessels, because the strategic flexibility of 10 smaller vessels is far greater.
Plenty of room for activities. I bet the Jr enlisted are still in coffin racks and have shared heads. TOS was written and designed by people that undoubtedly had military service and naval experience. After experiencing living on a ship first hand this is a refreshingly realistic breakdown.
Oh! What kind of ship did you live on? I've been on some ships when I worked in the offshore industry eons ago but most were not more than 50 meters or so. I wnet stir crazy after 3 weeks, but introverted and practically a kid at the time.
Scott M I went to the USS Cod Museum this weekend, World War II United States submarine, the junior enlisted there had basically a mattress.
Actually I think that is a yes. I think Roddenberry himself was Navy...I think, but I would have to confirm that. But in Star Trek VI we get a look at the crew quarters on a Excelsior class ship and a refit Constitution and sure enough, they are in bunks...coed bunks. So I am pretty sure its the same deal on the older version.
Scott M Nobody would be crammed into coffin racks in the post-scarcity utopian Federation Starfleet.
I think the Franz Joseph Star Trek Technical Manual showed diagrams of the heads and the (probably sonic) showers.
They crew could also save space by hot-bunking. But, it's probably not necessary, given the estimated size of the ship.
It makes sense that the way you put it. Another thing that many people forget is not only crew space, labs, cargo, ect..., but the logistics of huge ships. Those giant ships like the Abrams enterprise would be a massive problem to build, supply, and maintain. The original spec makes a very usable and practical size.
And too, in order to support the ship there has to be the infrastructure there. If you design a ship of Size A, but I cannot maintain it, then that ship is of no use to anyone. To take a page from History, back in the 1890-1910 time period, the United States Navy was quite limited in the size of the biggest ships that it could build because they didn't have Dry Docks big enough. You want to increase the size of a ship? Then give me (the guy who's going to maintain and repair the damn thing) the tools that go along with it. AND, in some cases, there may be regions where you cannot operate your huge ship simply because I cannot maintain or repair it.
Edit: In that area.
Most of a huge spaceship would realiatically be filled with fuel and heat exchange units for its reactor, but I know that doesnt really apply to the enterprise.
Herbert N I didn't say impossible, but a problem
Herbert N: We are talking about Star Trek and Science Fiction here, not reality.
The one thing left out of the conversation is fuel stores. Both antimatter and Deuterium. I would imagine the majority of the engineering hull is meant for tank storage, but the TOS secondary hull seems rather thin for that. Plus they never exactly fleshed out the idea of a Warp Core (and in fact that term was never mentioned until TNG), it wasn't until TMP that we finally see the intermix chamber spanning from the back of the saucer to the bottom of the secondary hull.
And lets face it, even though the TOS ship was "big enough" you still recall Dax's statement on "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9) that they "really pack 'em in on these old ships"
That worked in the 1960's because that is what ships were like back then. Today's idea of ships that aren't designed to be warships is totally different, emphasizing open space and room to spread out. Further, making the ship bigger in 2009 was a necessity when the intended shooting location for Engineering was the massive brewery which would have NEVER fit inside a ship of TOS' size. The water turbine room thing wouldn't have fit either. So they were kinda screwed into a larger size ship to fit the shooting locations. Would you seriously have bought these locations if the ship were back to TOS size? Most certainly not. And one of the golden rules of filmmaking is, why spend more money on a soundstage set when there is a cheaper location option already available?
I spent several years on a fast attack submarine where in several months my first year aboard split half my off watch time Hot-racking with one or two other crew-members. The Constitution Class Starship has an obscene amount of wasted space and is plenty big enough for any long range mission
Remember that Scotty was surprised by the sheer size of the Enterprise D's standard guest quarters, remarking that in his time (with the Connie) even an Admiral wouldn't get such an impressive room. We can assume that the times we see rooms in TOS the set is literally the entire room.
Speaking as a Blender artist...I built a model of the bridge of the Enterprise for use in some of my projects and scaled it to published specs. Then I built a model of the Enterprise itself in entirety. Using the scene in 'The Cage' where the camera zooms in through the bridge dome into the bridge itself, I decided to make my bridge dome semi-transparent. That meant that I would have to insert my model of the bridge inside. That was when I discovered that at the published 947 feet length...the bridge dome simply wasn't large enough for the bridge shown in the show. So I scaled the ship up. When I hit 1300 feet, the bridge fit comfortably. So that's what I went with. Total ship's length: 1301 feet give or take a few inches. The interior of the hanger also fit more comfortably that way. And I built the complete interior of the secondary hull based on blueprints I found online. Similar to the interior from TMP but with a few differences. That's my experience and I'll stand by those figures.
Current aircraft carriers have a crew roster of 6000 personel.
The carriers are real Star Trek & star wars is not bone head.
@Star Trek Theory They are constantly bringing women onto carriers and removing them when they become pregnant.
Having lived onboard USS Nimitz from 1996-1998, we were plenty comfortable even when ship's company and air squadrons were onboard. Without the squadrons, the crew was about 3,000 or less, with PLENTY of empty space.
@@josephD32 I believe it, I've been to the Midway museum and it's a midget compared to Nimitz. THANK YOU for your service, Joseph.
I remember Dax once said "they really packed them in," meaning the ship was pretty crowded. Watching the original series I never got that impression.
Just another in a virtually endless litany of condescending and disrespectful attitudes displayed toward TOS by the later iterations of Trek, with the notable exception of Enterprise. One of the many reasons l despise the staggeringly silly TNG and the rest of its lame ilk.
Compared to ship sizes vs. crew compliments in her era, they did "pack them in" in TOS era. Take Galaxy... 2.5 times the number of people onboard compared to Constitution class, WAY WAY more than 2.5 times the internal volume (I've seen numbers along the lines of 8x the internal volume). 2.5 times more people, 8 times more space. They'd consider TOS era ships cramped, definitely. Even the TOS movie era ships still around in DS9 probably function with more technological innovation and automation, and fewer crew.
Dax was probably exaggerating, all things considered.
Compared to the monsters you see in the 24th, yeah... You actually saw people in the halls on TOS milling about normally, not just during an evac.
I agree it's big enough to do what it was supposed to do. I appreciate your attention to detail and keep up the great work!
I agree as well. Admittedly, the "RV Units" in this rough calculation don't require ship machinery/systems for atmospherics, gravity, inertial damping, structural integrity, computer cores, turbolifts, etc ... so 30% total deck space reserved for ship systems seems awfully conservative to me (I'd go with 50% to 75%, it is a _warship_ after all), most things probably can't be stuffed into tubes and crawl spaces between decks. But the big saucer has even more volume. And then there's the secondary hull. Plenty of living space. Especially considering how many _thousands_ of people can be accommodated (quite comfortably, even luxuriously) on today's similarly-sized ocean liners.
P "I agree as well. Admittedly, the "RV Units" in this rough calculation don't require ship machinery/systems for atmospherics, gravity, inertial damping, structural integrity, computer cores, turbolifts, etc ... so 30% total deck space reserved for ship systems seems awfully conservative to me (I'd go with 50% to 75%, it is a warship after all), most things probably can't be stuffed into tubes and crawl spaces between decks."
I absolutely agree with you P. I was thinking about 50% because of the things not mentioned like major bulkheads, computer core and turbolifts as well. Still plenty of room according to the video. The secondary hull could be all engineering, shuttlebay, emergency bridge, cargo and laboratories and turbolifts.
Gene Roddenberry and his team were geniuses
Star trek unlike other sci fi projects did its homework. I agree that 289 meters for the constitution class ships was large enough.
They absolutely did. The science was always founded in reality and lots of the things we have today were foreshadowed there. Kirk had a mobile phone and Picard had a tablet and even the warp drive has been proven to be theoretically feasible.
And the couple times when they jumped the shark were at least fun to watch.
i think you did a fine job with your calculations!!! and i am a HARDCORE (TOS) fan and i dont see a lot to argue with here!!!
Ahh c’mon now. Any Trekkie worth their salt knows that the other 422 were expendable crew members whose only job was to die horrible, painful deaths so the 8 chosen ones wouldn’t have to. Anytime someone other than the regular bridge crew and Dr. McCoy went down on a landing party, they might as well start writing their epitaphs.
Capt. Kirk: You, you, and you, go up there on that hill and dig three holes.
Expendable crewmember #1: Why sir?
Capt. Kirk: I’ll tell you later.
😁😉😃
Sorry sir..... my red shirt is in the laundry!
LOL.
That's about right.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Many of those 422 were there to give Kirk potential love interests. I don't remember any of the female yeomen or scientists with whom Kirk fell in love or was otherwise placed in an awkward romantic situation ever dying.
On Kirks ship i'd rather run in red than in blue. Less risk overall. Just let me work in a completely mundane part that wont even endanger the ship when failed.
Or let me be the scotsman who'll get warp 8.5 of an engine classified for warp 7
When the number 287 popped up I was a bit skeptical. Of course doing the calculations like you did, it was clear that there was more than enough room in that ship for crew, labs, equipment, etc. just in the saucer section alone. It really goes to show how much our perception can be skewed.
Imagine an athletics track. Then at bother 10 metres to the length. Now make circle with that diameter. Now imagine how tiny people are ecompared to it.
And that's just the saucer section
This article just reminds me that GOD the JJ-Prise is hideous. There isn't one angle that doesn't look awkward.
The refit from the TOS films is still the best-looking ship in the franchise.
I like the Kelvin Timeline Connie. I also think the refit is ugly and much prefer the OG design.
Not mention the 'engineering' area that looked like a damned brewery. 😏
@@ironwolfF1 If Scottie's whisky consumption is anything to go by then it probably is.
@@seankayll9017 That would be a distillery, not a brewery.
Yeah... but JJ's Enterprise needed all the additional space to stow that extra-large supply of lens-flares. Can't make a great sci-fi movie without a ton of lens-flares ... duh!
The brewery they had on board took up much more space than even the lens flares.
I think a real explanation for the scale up is that it's using a completely different type of warp drive. The core is more complicated, so with 23rd-century tech it had to be larger, and the rest of the design was scaled up around it.
@@Monody512 its actually confirmed that the buffed up enterprise made by the jj-movies is the result of nero's timetravel. the kelvin was able to scan the narada and her technology and send a lot of data back to star fleet. so they had better tec and could build bigger ships. in fact it took 14 more years to build the enterprise in the jj-verse than it did in the prime verse...
@@peaveyst7 But then why was the Kelvin engineered more like the JJ Enterprise than like the ships of the classic timeline?
That was an excellent job of both estimating the available space on the inside and using a realistic real-world reference to back up your reasoning.
You seemed to kind-of leave out hallways (I can't pack RV's directly against each other, or nobody can get out of their unit), but that second deck gives back more than enough space to accommodate the crew.
If you've seen the Technical Manual by Franz Joseph, I'm pretty sure it shows different-sized living quarters. While it isn't screen-canon, I believe it supports your idea that crew quarters are probably smaller.
There's still plenty of unallocated space in the saucer alone, so you're definitely right about having enough room for the TOS crew to fit, live, and work.
The doors are all at one end with circular hallways between rows. It's the size of an rv not the door arrangement.
IcantSignIn my point was more that it seemed to me that the estimate of space for hallways got left off, not that the estimate was bad.
I admit, I might have missed how he demonstrated the layout in the video.
He didn't actually demonstrate, I was waiting for the saucer to be filled with little RVs but he didn't do it. That was my own take. They're always running or walking down those curved hallways in the show. (though I would think putting some straight shots in there would help in getting from A to B in an emergency on a real ship.) I don't know if he mentioned hallways specifically either. TOS had a crew of 400ish and he said he could house 1000 ish in the saucer if it was all RV sized quarters. So remove a few rows for hallways and other labs and functions it should be about right.
No Celebrity - go back to the video to the 5:00 minute mark. He clearly states: "...room for bulkheads, corridors, turbolifts..." etc. Pretty sure corridors = hallways, don't you think?
Well, that's pretty cool - I didn't realize you could just click on the 5:00 text in my comment and it would take you directly to that spot in the video. Nice.
Go to 5:00 minute mark.
Best star trek channel
There were blue prints in the (non-cannonical) FASA RPG. They made it work - and actually had a lot of space to spare. Did you ever look at those?
www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/uss-enterprise-fasa-15mm-deck-plans.php
Love your video. It gave the prospective that the ship can hold enough crew members and still have enough room. I don't if you mentioned or not but some of these RV size rooms remain empty because it is reserve for diplomats and special guests.
I live on a sailboat, and one thing you learn from sailing is just how much water a person needs to be comfortable. while you can live on maybe half-a gallon per day, you need water for a lot more than just drinking. if you plan to bathe and cook every day as well as get your recommended amount of drinking water you're easily looking at lower double digits. while a boat can just bring a water maker to filter seawater, a spaceship has to bring all the water its crew needs. assuming each crewman only drinks .5 gal a day, washes hands 5 times a day, takes 2 10-min showers, brushes their teeth after every meal, takes three trips to the shitter, and does laundry once a week, the enterprise can expect to process 233,280 gallons of black and grey water each week before we even get into any uses the ship might have for the onboard water, like cooking, reactor shielding, temperature management, or the on-board water park. the important thing isn't so much where to fit the crew, but whether she can fit the water she needs, along with the equipment to take it from straight sewage to potable water again.
You say that as if they blow water out the top of the ship at Warp like a whale. You're ignoring, maybe because you think it's gross, that Starships simulate an ecosystem. Even today you'll find it on space shuttles and space stations. They recycle their water. Waste management, extraction, filtering, recycling. Today's fresh cool glass of water was yesterday's piss.
If you were to use the water only once, there's no way that they could carry enough to go five weeks let alone five years.
Sonic showers and clothing for washing. We have enough with modern tech to create drinking water from waste if there is none to be found from outside sources. So far in our solar system it's shown that water is not a difficult issue to acquire at all as well.
233,280 gallons will only take up 1155 cubic yards or 17 of the rvs. Plenty of room if they only process the waste water only 1 day out of 7.
Water is also one of the most plentiful substances in the galaxy. In ice-form it's on many planets too cold to support life, as well as the major component of comets. Harvesting more if needed would be no serious problem for a ship that can cross between stars.
It would be a safe assumption that given their level of technological sophistication, what with warp cores, transporters, artificial gravity and the like, that they might have technology that allows for laundry to be done without consuming water. Additionally, the water recycling systems would be above and beyond anything we have today. When you consider the amount of area needed for 1 gallon of water, and then the mount of area available on the ship compared to the space needed for the crew, you'd still have more than enough space to carry all the water you need.
The famous AMT model kit comes in at about 1:634 scale when you divide 289 m (289,000 mm) by 456 mm, the length of the assembled kit.
Using that scale as a base, the thickness of the outer rim of the saucer is 6.3 meters (the model being just about 10 mm thick), JUST enough for two decks of about 9 feet height (2.7 meters) and some outer skin and deck plating, framing and utility lines, conduits, pipes, etc. Barely. The lower hull of the saucer has that lovely, graceful upward curve before it droops down towards the lower center with its upside down lit "dome", which would eliminate the double deck arrangement for a band 20 meters wide, between a radius of 35 to 55 meters from the saucer center. Let's assume there's only one deck there (the upper) with the curved floor below used for other fancy tech stuff we 20th and 21st Century peeps don't understand. And that single deck is higher floor-to-ceiling than the two outer decks. Voilá, we have vertical room for our TV show set corridors.
The corridors we saw in TOS looked at least 10 feet (3.05 meters) high with their translucent Moiré pattern section panels, not that the TV show sets ever had any real ceilings anyway (those panels were supposed to distract from that fact). So maybe we can sleep soundly tonight (hah!) if we assume that the corridors shown on TOS were all interior corridors in that 20 meter band between radius 35 and 55 m from center. Which is convenient, as we never saw any portholes or windows with star fields behind them in any of the cabins or labs that lined those corridors, because showing that would have cost money. And money is something TOS did NOT have. The obviously smallish radius of the corridors would also be consistent with a location closer to the saucer center, because any corridors located near the outer rim of the saucer would have much less bend in them than the ones shown in the series.
The outer rim of the saucer is nearly 400 meters in circumference with the band comprising the two-deck stack-up at least 15 meters wide. It could easily accommodate a few hundred spacious cabins plus access corridors, and if we assume that some of the crew, like freshmen Starfleet cadets would be housed in dormitories, there's plenty of room in the saucer for a crew of 400 plus other facilities.
The TOS hangar deck is another matter of course and has already been shown to not really fit. But, while it looks massive when comparing it to the apparent space available at the tail end of the secondary hull, it's still roughly the right scale. The deck miniature was shot with a near fish-eye camera lens so it seems to be a a mile long. It does indicate a height of 3 full decks with the two observation galleries port and starboard lining the tapered and barrel-shaped vault of the hangar space and is not grossly inconsistent with the scale kit, which is 15 mm (about 9 meters full size) tall at the back end, a bit of a squeeze but nearly consistent with a 3-deck height. The shuttle bay doors are about 15 meters across at their base (25 mm on the model) , more than twice the length of Galileo, also fairly consistent with the TOS shuttle bay miniature set. The only thing about the shuttle bay is that the roots of the engine pylons really, REALLY want to criss-cross the secondary hull at the forward end of the hangar bay. That would also make for an entertaining view coming into the deck. So, we could just assume that the camera POV was right above where the pylons crossed and we just can't see the struts to the left and right rising up towards the engines. There! All is well with the Star Trek universe!
Isn't 1:620 a more common model scale?
I derived the scale from measuring an assembled kit. It might possibly have been intended as 1:620 scale but then wouldn't make it to 289 meters/947 feet. I seriously doubt that anybody involved in the creation of the model kit back then was too concerned with creating something of perfect accuracy. It was never meant to hold up under too much scrutiny. After all, it was "just" a whacky prop of an even whackier TV show. Nobody in their right mind would have ever envisioned that half a century later thousands of geeks like us would nitpick every last thing about that show :) Oh, had they only known then what we think we know now.....LOL
Gene Roddenberry who was an ex bomber pilot, probably knew how many men a plane or starship could hold. 👍
In the “Making of Star Trek” , deck seven housed the entire medical complex. Deck eight had the ship’s gym, theater, recreation areas, laundry, etc. Decks four, five, and six had crews’ quarters with briefing room on deck six.
I love that he measured the living quarters in RVs
Well done. Agreed. I have several different deck plans of the original Enterprise and there is a LOT in there. Canon is important.
That reminds me, the original Enterprise had only 6 phaser turrets! Later versions show 12 externally, but only show the original 6 in the deck plans. It would be nice if people would just let things be, instead of altering artifacts from the 1960's match work done decades later.
+Paul Kent
_"That reminds me, the original Enterprise had only 6 phaser turrets! Later versions show 12 externally, but only show the original 6 in the deck plans. It would be nice if people would just let things be, instead of altering artifacts from the 1960's match work done decades later."_
The class was canonically refit multiple times. The final refit in the film series has 18 phasers.
"The class was canonically refit multiple times. The final refit in the film series has 18 phasers."
It's not your fault, but that information just made me do a face-palm.
+Paul Kent
_"It's not your fault, but that information just made me do a face-palm."_
www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-blueprints-sheet-4.jpg
I thought you meant that they retroactively put 18 phasers on the TOS Enterprise. My beef is with "corrected" versions of the old drawings. If somebody wants to use them as a basis to design of the ship, draw varients, I've got no problem, more power to them! I have half a mind to build a model of the movie Enterprise, converted into a carrier. I just don't want to see the 1960's drawings, presented as "original," yet filled with artifacts fitted into the ST universe, decades later.
The people who designed it knew what they were doing.
Sort of, but they made some mistakes. 289 meters is the wrong number. Whoever came up with that number did the math wrong. The ceilings would be about 6 feet tall at that length. It might be “canon”, but it still doesn’t work.
I heard once Gene himself said , never mind the science , just concentrate on the fiction .
Love your post , got me thinking ,
Gene had the last laugh , on all of us
, got us all thinking of possibilities .
I'll try to donate , but money's tight !
Maybe , fri the 17th , 20 bucks .... most , i swear !
Patrion again ?
On the other hand Gene also had the scientific sense to now have rockets propelling his ship at FTL speeds, knew that lasers don't work like what he wanted for phasers, and had all the technologies that FTL and relativistic speeds would require like a structural integrity field, inertial dampeners, and a navigational deflector. And matter/anti-matter propulsion.
Jamie Kirk1 second agoWho knew an ex LAPD motorcycle cop could be so ...
I'm glad someone brought this up! The original Enterprise was a GOOD size ship in it's own right, big enough for an ensign to have his OWN quarters as seen in the TOS episode: "Obsession." Thanks for posting!
I literally paused the video to go make the aircraft carrier argument, then when I hit play again the very next second you did it for me.
Great video
I've said many times the 2009 movie works fine if you imagine the ship being the original 289 meters. (Shuttle bay scene aside)
www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm
Having just laid out rough plans for a "crew deck" based on a design I saw on one of the groups I'm in, and using 5m x 7m crew quarters (35m sq), I'd say you're right on for your estimates. 30% for mechanical for each deck might be low (or could be high!), but it's probably as right as any guess. (And based on a number of blueprints I've seen for the Connie, it's probably pretty close.) Given there were other crew quarters in the engineering hull, and possibly other decks as well, I see no reason that a crew of 430 wouldn't fit very well in this size of ship, especially given it's mission, the type of entertainment and enrichment that 'should' be available, (Seriously, we didn't see it, but I'm sure that World of Warcraft 106: GOLD FARMERS FOREVER! was a thing.) and the types of people that were 'supposed' to be in Star Fleet at the time. I also vaguely remember them mentioning in the TNG tech manual something along the line of the Galaxy class being able to bump up the personal area available for each crew member to 105ish m sq, so using your RV for the basis on the Connie is being generous I think. If you don't have to cook/clean/store stuff because most of that is taken care of by the ship, then even a 5m x 5m room (about 17'x17') is actually pretty big, bigger than most dorm rooms, and those folks are there for 6-9 months as well.
Overall, good video!
The original Star Trek series Enterprise was plenty big enough! They've changed and messed with cannon so many times that I tolerate the new movies but dislike and refuse to pay for Discovery. I think the new series yet to come with Pattrick Stewart is a cheap attempt to try and sucker people like me who refused to pay for Discovery and try to get us to subscribe for the nostalgia of Captain Piccard. Nice try CBS. If it's free, I'll try it but I'm not paying to see Star Trek further destroyed
yeah 10 or so years ago, I would have bought Picard, or Patrick Stewart's MOTIVE in coming back in a regular series.....Stewart's VOICE is going, it is getting weaker, which hurts him as an actor, since he was MOSTLY dialogue based...........Add to that a BUNCH of lame cameos by his former fellow crew, and you have a POINTLESS return for Picard, at least long terms.....If he were to do three seasons, he would be 81 years old........MUCH rather see Shatner try and putt off another show than Stewart....
We've seen RETURNS by Han Solo, Princess Leia, Mr Spock, Scotty and so on, and I'd say they were ALL unnecessary and kinda dumb......The common denominator is that they are all TOO OLD to STILL be playing the characters, and Picard/Stewart are in that same boat.....
The Orville is the true Trek successor.
I mean I just decided not to bother paying CBS and just pirated the stuff instead. I'll pay when I know the product is good.
Paranoid much? And if you want free there's always some guy pretending to be kirk in their basement with their smartphone you can enjoy
@@HariSeldon913 yes
Having read the original ST Tech manual from the original series, it included deck plans for the Constitution class as well as dimensions for quarters. It also gave the exact crew compliment with the breakdown of how many officers and enlisted personnel.
The Matt Jeffries blueprints for the Constitution Class, from the 1970's, always showed that there was plenty of space for 420 officers and crew. FYI, the officers quarters were in the bulge above the main hull disk. The crew quarters were, in fact, quite spacious by contemporary navy standards, or by Klingon or Romulan standards.
The original ship was compared in size to 2 USA aircraft carriers: CVN-65 The Post WWII Enterprise, and the Nimitz. Consider that the Battleship Arizona, at Pearl, on Dec 7, 1941, lost over 1100 people, when she went down, on that Day of Infamy. I think if you can find a copy of "The Making of Star Trek" (I used to have a copy, decades ago!) You will find that they agree with you: She is plenty big enough. And Jim Kirk implied so, in one episode.
P.M. Laberge: Actually no, the NCC 1701 ENTERPRISE was compared to the Nuclear Air Craft Carrier ENTERPRISE, but the NIMITZ was not commissioned until 1975, some 7-8 years (more or less) AFTER the Original Series went off the air, and so could not have been a basis for comparison.
In the original book (The Making of Star Trek), it was compared to the Enterprise (The nuclear-powered one, not the WWII One.). Later on, people compared it to Nimitz. Of course, by then TOS was over with. This happened in subsequent story books. Not sure why...
One could say the CVN-65 Enterprise was the prototype for the Nimitz class design with a similar base layout but some more experimental desicions that got streamlined for later ships.
Yes, the Enterprise is longer, but we're comparing 1123 vs 1092 ft here, hardly noticable on that scale.
Comparing the NCC-1701 with it either of it will be perfectly fien for scale.
HappyBeezerStudios-by Lord_Mugul: However, one BIG difference between the ENTERPRISE and the NIMITZ is the number and power of the Nuclear Reactors. IIRC the ENTERPRISE had 8 reactors whereas the NIMITZ has only 2 (IIRC), which greatly increased the internal space within the NIMITZ.
The "_Emden_" going back to Germany from Norway when allied invasions were re-taking that country. Some military were aboard, but mostly civilians going back. Manifest listed about 7000 people but they were cramming them in, so there might have been 9000 aboard.
Torpedoed by a Soviet sub. A few hundred survived.
Speaking of subs... back then, and in the 1914-'18 war subs were out fr months, but they had plenty of stops and resupply activities. It was probably pretty harsh in all such services, but we could expect the same performance under lesser pressures from Starfleet.
The larger size of the enterprise in the Kelvin timeline kind of makes sense, after the USS Kelvin was destroyed Starfleet doctrine changed to allow for more defensive ships, but it still is a little busty
That's one of the things I'm willing forgive the Kelvin Timeline.
Any ship that has an "office" in it is a flying office building or more accurately stated, a "mobile administrative office". This warp powered office enforces policy within it's administrative territory. OMG I hate sleeping at the office and bathing in the coffee maker BUuuuuut you can walk around in your footy pajamas @ 3am and have all the monitors screen savers be lcars if you want!
AAaahhh....So true...so true....
Macro deth: HOWEVER, even Civilian Cargo Ships (and that includes ships built during World War ONE) have offices onboard. For a "ship" to become a "Flying Office Building" its PRIMARY mission has to be exactly what any office building has, a LOT of office space and related spaces, and everyone onboard that ship would either be involved in operating the ship proper (the Engineers, the Deck Personnel and the Stewards), OR their office workers.
As a US Marine, I was on board several ships. One, was a amphibious helicopter carrier. With the ships crew, Marine pilots, and over 1,000 Marines, there still was loads of room to wander around. That ship wasn't anywhere as big as today's amphibious ships or the modern aircraft carriers, yet it was big enough for all of us.
This actually makes sense of the fact that no one was around when Kirk was fighting off an Andorian with a knife in a corridor. I think the episode was "Journey to Babel", I may be mistaken. It's the episode where Spock's mom slaps him for not giving a blood transfusion to his father.
You forgot that the saucer section isn't completely 2 decks. It's just 2 decks towards the edge but as you move towards the center tis compressed to one deck.
Yep, it curves under the saucer. Nice catch!
Ugochukwu Anyadike I had the Official Blueprints which were published in the 70s. I don't recall how many decks top to bottom the saucer was, but the lower of the 2 decks compressed to a half deck ring around the central bulge, which was at least 2 decks further down to the lower sensor platform. The half deck was primarily machinery & storage.
The lower of the 2 decks also housed the landing struts for the separated saucer section, as I recall. Never shown because it would've been too expensive, but always part of the concept.
It then re-expands to five decks or so. The space lost from the curve is gained back and then some in the bulge.
What about in ST-V where Spock has the rocket boots and they go to deck 70+ ?
The Enterprise was in the shop for repairs that week, they were actually on the Tardisprise for that mission.
I've got the blueprint package of the original Enterprise and the TNG Enterprise. The original was without question big enough
Damn. Drop the mike on the size debate. Well done!
People tend to forget about The Starfleet Technical Manual, which often went into detail and had internal schematics of various Starfleet ships, including all versions of the Enterprise and what decks had what rooms. The first one I believe was printed back in the 60's or 70's shortly after The Original Series took off in popularity alongside the other Sci-Fi tv series.
Based on the US Navy, there is roughly 1 officer for every 9 to 11 enlisted. With 430 personnel, there would be between 39 and 47 officers, with between 391 and 383 enlisted (both NCOs and Lower Enlisted crewmen).
Also, an Iowa Class had a crew of 2,700 with only about 270 meters of hull length. If the 19 meter longer Enterprise can't hold less than 16% the crew of an Iowa, then there's some serious problems.
When you put your winnibaego in space I spit out my coffee
"Switch to secret hyperjets!" - Lonestar
that how we will be starships in the future weld a bunch of winnibegos together and strap rockets to them
The Enterprise...such a pleasure for the eyes even to this day. I doubt space was much an issue, the ship was plenty large enough for its mission profile.
I think 30% off of habitable space in the larger decks on the saucer might be a little too conservative when you take into account the computer core, auxilliary command and just how much space TOS-era impulse engines would probably need. I would personally shave off around 40-45%, perhaps even 50%. Even so, we know most people's quarters were tiny compared to TNG and that even a few decades later on the Excelsior class there were still shared quarters and dormitories so it stands to reason that the original Enterprise would be the same. The original Enterprise was comfortable, lavish and spacious where it counts but that doesn't mean the whole ship was. 289m is more than enough for the crew, their needs and to fit the technology of the era. Don't get me wrong, I love the Kelvin-timeline Enterprise and the Discovery-era Enterprise, but there isn't really a need for her to be massive and grandiose.
I prefer the kelvinprise to a size of 366 metres. We see in star trek beyond that the Crew quarters have a size of 7.5 square metres. With that in mind: the saucer of a 366 metre kelvinprise would be 168 metres wide and would have space for 8257 people. The kelvinprise isn't just for exploration but way more security oriented (for evacuations and combat). I don't think the Shuttles are 12 metres long. They were designed to be 6 metres long and the kelvinprise was designed to be 366 metres long so I'm going with that scale. There are 13 decks in the saucer section, each of those decks are 2.3 metres high. A 30 metre high saucer matches perfectly with the saucer of 366 metre kelvinprise.
The kelvinprise has a Crew of 1100 people. All the details on a 366 metre kelvinprise match perfectly with the Details of the Tmp refit.
He's a simple answer; YES 289 METERS (948') IS PLENTY BIG FOR 430 people, supplies, food, hydroponics, water, recreation etc. Aircraft carriers (about 1100') house 5000-6000 people, 80+ aircraft, actual food, actual fuel, actual water, kitchens and all the other kinds of equipment that take up more space than that on the Enterprise. The Enterprise has 23 decks, and carriers have similar amount of decks. But the saucer section is much wider than a carrier so it has more square footage and probably more overall volume. Again, YES 289 METERS IS PLENTY BIG FOR 430 PEOPLE!
Awesome episode. I always loved the 'smaller' specs on Trek ships in general. Favored them over the city sized Star Wars ships.
So good and well explained Sport.She is definitely big enough for the required job at hand.I don't mind the shape of the JJ Enterprise but I hated that he had to mess with established canon on the size just so he could show off the beer brewery he used for the engine room.The Enterprise to me is still the most beautiful Starship/spaceship to ever grace the screens of tv and movie.I rate the 1701 Refit.Then TOS 1701 then the 1701E in that order as my favourites.The others are well behind these.Just my opinion though.Cheers.Live Long and Prosper!!
A better comparison would be how space is utilized on a ballistic missile submarine, designed to stay underwater for months at a time. You're going to enlarge accommodations for officers, but crew will still likely live in a dorm/barracks environment rather than a shared cabin. You can also allow for technology to solve a lot of problems. Even on the ISS today they can fully recycle their water and the fuel cells used on the Space Shuttle generated so much water they dumped excess overboard. If they can reclaim O2 from CO2, and with the Bussard collectors brining in Hydrogen, that solves the problem with water supplies and ties in nicely with the replicator technology. The TOS replicator food didn't look like typical cooked food or replicated TNG food, which could be explained as a way to save resources and storage space on such a "small" long range cruiser.
Also, a simple solution to a lot of space issues for labs, research areas, etc., is configurable space much like today's office cubicles (but on a grander scale). You don't enough space to do everything all the time at once, but space can be reconfigured for certain roles easily as needs require it. Galley space can be severely shrunk if you're using primarily replicators for food. If you need fresh cooked meals for a diplomatic mission, a galley can be deployed in a configurable space for the duration of that mission.
Ladco77 The original Enterprise had kitchens, not replicators. There's a specific mention of this in the episode Charlie X (Charlie solved the chefs dilemma of not having enough turkeys to feed the crew by conjuring up living turkeys!) Fans during the 70s & 80s concluded the food dispensers were some kind of dumbwaiter system.
The replicator was first mentioned in Next Generation. None of the movies with the original cast (Shatner, et.al.) ever referenced replicator technology. They did show crew in multi bunk quarters, though.
Starfleet was more egalitarian though, they wouldn't have cramped bunk-rooms for crew in a post-scarcity society would they? Of course maybe they hadn't thought of all that when they started filming TOS.
heat
Floyd Looney I think it was Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country that showed Enterprise crewmen living in multi bunk cabins; & also as kitchen staff. Next Generation was already on-the-air with replicators, so this was a deliberate decision.
However, in one episode of TOS, Captain Kirk is heard apologize for the fact that the Thanksgiving Turkey is a modified meat loaf.
Given the crew quarters seen in lower decks this is more then enough
There are a lot of surprisingly detailed deck plans out there that give you a pretty good idea of how much room there would be.
Two things: One, looks like the original Constitution class Enterprise was right-sized for its mission. Two, Hey! I didn't know you were in Corpus Christi. I was born there, and lived there up until about a decade ago. Still go back a couple times a year to visit my folks. Anyway, cheers -- thanks for a great video! 👍
I hate to break it to you but Franz Joesph already did a blue print showing how the interior space is used. You should really check it out. This is why I balk at the JJprise being the size he claims it is.
Patrick Radcliffe what's so breaking about that? Look at the last graphic of the deck I used. See something familiar?
Resurrected Starships nope if you are refering to Franz Joseph's blueprints. You put together a good video and I enjoyed.
I don't balk at it given it is officially and canonically stated to be an alternate timeline multiple times and the key difference is the Narada and much later the destruction of Vulcan which influenced starship design.
Is that the one with the nice bowling alley under the shuttlecraft bay?
@@Nowhereman10 Then maybe you should balk at horrifically lazy and uninformed screenwriting and design.
Are you in Corpus Christi?
Did you just ask me if I am inside the corpse of Jesus in Spanish??
Oh man,I remember dying from the summer heat there. Ugh, I'm having flashbacks now lol.
Just about to ask the same thing, I'd recognize the Blue Ghost anywhere
Yah the japanese claimed to have sunk it 3 times I think! War back then certainly was different.
I've said this before and I'll say it until my dying breath: Every time (after the first three seasons or their pilots) "they" (CBS, Paramount) try to improve the original, they make it WORSE, and not by small orders of magnitude. Leave it alone. Go back to the original design. (What the Hades is all that rotational flippity-doo-dah that the Discovery does, anyway?) If "Continues" could do it right, you'd think those mega-conglomerates could do so as well. The one thing that even the Disney Star Wars has done is stick with some sort of "loose continuity" of visuals, +/- the respective timelines in which the stories were written. That helps that franchise maintain some small amount of "ability to suspend disbelief" that was butchered beginning with the 1979 "Motionless Picture". Was it about the Human Condition? Yes, but not ONLY about the Human Condition, which is where the various "corporate" pundits go off the rails. Yes, I know Roddenberry himself was a part of the problem. So was Robert Wise, whom I gather was primarily responsible for the "vertical" Barber pole engine room nonsense. I won't go into everything wrong with "Discovery" because they took what was great (and not overstated/turned up to "11") in terms of Social commentary, and decided that there could be NO traditional baseline for Human behavior in the future whatsoever, which makes the show look irretrievably dumb, at least to me. You didn't have the "unwilling" Shatner/Nichols liplock happening six times in every episode. Frank Gorshin's episode wasn't retreaded endlessly every SINGLE week. (If it's good, once is enough.) Hit an issue cleanly. Make it a sharp, short punch to the solar plexus and then move on to other ACTUAL, Science Fiction. I think that whole Sad Puppies movement/business is onerous, but they're not altogether wrong that there is no sense of proportion in terms of a true "diversity" or "distribution" where today's statistical outliers become THE norm without ANY deviations of ANY kind from it. It looks, smells and views like disingenuous overreach. More is not "better" in spacecraft size/design or Political Correctness. A judicious, well-written amount can actually go farther. JMO. I know that the look of the original series was influenced by David Sarnoff, but be that as it may, tradition isn't always 100% bad. The grabbiness of the original tunics definitely didn't do Shatner any favors, so modern equivalents that LOOK the same would be fine. Again, if "Continues" could pull it off, I'd like to think CBS could. If Sony reboots Breaking Bad in 10 more years, I'd like to think that they won't have Walter White wearing multi-LED laden tightie whities. Less (or the same, in that case especially) would be more. That's what ACTUAL IDIC looks like when divorced from its Lincoln Enterprises provenance. YMMV, and that's okay. I remember the original "blueprints" for the Constitution Class being overlaid with a picture of (I think) the Nimitz. That's like 997 ft, right? Sounds good to me. Do I sound like I'm an old guy? Yep, it's not a crime. That's a different franchise.
As someone who tends to be all in on the updated visuals, I think the issue for many fans (including myself) isn't so much that the original designs were "bad", but just that certain aspects of them look dated in light of real world technological developments. If we take the look of the TOS era constitution as 100% canon, that would mean the ship has technology in the 23rd century that we've already managed to surpass (such as CRT monitors and analog controls.)
To each their own, but I prefer a show set in the future to look like some plausible vision of the future in the time it was made, rather than some retro vision of what people in the 60's thought the future would look like. If that means the visuals have to shift to keep up with the times, I'm ok with that.
@@timf7413 One of the most interesting "Fanon" theories about those "CRT" monitors is that they may be higher tech than you think - just not realized on screen because it was impossible to do so at the time with the effects they had.
The theory goes that the "CRT Monitors" such as the three-in-one on the conference room table or the ones in Kirk's or Spock's quarters, or even the main bridge screen - were in fact producing images in 3D. Such that it didn't really look like you were looking at a screen, but through a window into an area beyond the screen and borders (unless you were observing the screen from an extreme angle).
As for analog controls, well touch screens are great and all - but even the JJ-Prise had the big whacking THROTTLE handle for the speed control! There's something to be said for actual practical controls and the advantages of tactile feedback. I have an iPhone, and I can work the touch screen just fine - as long as I can SEE IT by looking directly at it. But what if that's not optimal? Currently I'm sitting in front of a standard desktop set-up with my eyes not on my keyboard and typing by feel, memory and training. And I feel it's far more efficient and allows me to type almost as fast as I'm thinking. (70-80 WPM Typing speed).
I used to have a smart phone that had both a touch screen AND a slide out keypad that allowed both types of interface! Loved that thing for that reason.
So I say - have both digital and analog interfaces. One as back-up for the other. The LCARS interface from Next Gen and beyond obviously works quite well for the purpose. But for reasons such as the examples above, it worried me that they didn't seem to have any back-up manual controls. The JJ-Prise helm station was a good compromise in my opinion.
I know there are a lot of "fanon" theories to explain things like that, and if that's how you prefer to deal with such things, more power to you. I'm just saying that my personal preference is to imagine the TOS era shows represent an imperfect rendering of what things "really" looked like. Neither is right or wrong, it's just preference in how we each choose to enjoy a fictional work.
@@timf7413 Completely fair. There's a lot of "Zeerust" that happens with Sci-Fi from different periods - at least if they're trying for some level of accuracy or prediction.
What's "Zeerust"? It's basically "science marches on". What we know today is significantly advanced from 50+ years ago. Heck - even 20 years ago - no iPhones and there were still lots of Pay Phones still around because cell phones hadn't completely permeated the market.
But look at the classic novel from Robert Heinlein - "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". The entire technical side of the plot - the intelligent AI computer running the phone system in the Lunar Cities/Penal Colonies - Is outdated now. Some kid reading that is going to think - hey - where's the personal comms?
Now - that can be explained - it's a penal colony run on the cheap for instance. They even mention that one of the reasons the computer "woke up" was that instead of paying the money to install smaller computers all over the various complexes, they just kept adding more and more abilities into the central computer. Lack of personal comms could be due to being underground and again - the government cheaping out for wall unit comms rather than repeaters and such.
Even so - it's the kind of thing that neither Heinlein or anyone else even thought of back then. Sci-Fi writers didn't START thinking about it until well into the 2000s and particularly after the iPhones and other smartphones were introduced. It's an entire sea-change in thinking that you can actually spot in various novels from the 90s through today.
Hell - even cyberpunk books like Snowcrash are woefully outdated. And I still love that book - but it no longer looks like the future. It looks like an alternate past now.
But even so - it's fun to try and bend the mind to find explanations for this stuff - (like the Heinlein book above) it's just that as you say - there's no right or wrong way to do any of this.
But it IS interesting. Always a fun subject.
@@timf7413
Actually, The ST-TOS has few analog controls. And the display technology (onscreen, not the non-canonical blueprints) is not at all unambiguously CRT -- I __never__ assumed it so. (And I thought it silly that the blueprints and such depicted them as such.) The controls do appear to be non-modal and not touch-screen... which is, for many purposes, much superior. (One does not wish a button to be redefined or absent... especially in a crisis.)
The US Navy is returning to a single traditional ship's wheel and dedicated engineroom telegraph (as opposed to multi-function digital navigation stations) on the bridges of its ships, after some silly (multi-million dollar) collisions! Much underlying workings may still be digital a/o virtual "drive-by-wire", but the controls under the hands of the quartermasters will be analog.
More of interest in the blueprints, to me... will, in the 23rd century, the place where I brush my teeth and soak in the tub still be where I crap?!
Not only is the Constitution class big enough for the crew with enough room to spare, but the Galaxy class is gigantic for it's crew. No wonder you rarely see someone walk around the corridors.
Outstanding work! Not only is the content of a high caliber, the narration is clear and a pleasure to listen to. AAA+ I have subscribed.
The Kelvin timeline Enterprise was absurdly two large.
....
when I saw that, I knew right then and there that the writers and creators did not care about Star Trek, they didn't understand Star Trek, nor do they understand what Star Trek means to the fans.
You said it, Kelvin Timeline. A parallel universe where a early encounter with Nero's updated ship forced them to build bigger, stronger ships. Yet another mirror universe.
@@tomf3150
Yes, I understand that is the (Excuse) or head Canon used to except or tolerate the Ridiculously large enterprise.
....
Number one,
the reason it was so big Is (not) because JJ Abrams cared (very much) about In universe logic and reason for things, Continuity, Canon or lore.
He made it bigger because he just wanted it bigger.
.....
Number 2, There's a difference between Designing and building a "bigger" ship, and taking a ship and just making it bigger.
....
Example,
Imagine how silly it would look if you took a tiny smart car and simply enlarged it in scale instead of designing a suburban.
....
And don't get me started on the fact that the vengeance was even bigger than that.. ugh!
it was big because JJ Abraham is a bad director who thinks bigger is better and more impressive. that's why his death star is a planet instead of the size of a small moon.
Your analysis ignores the decks in the saucer bulge up to the bridge & down to the lower sensor. Offices, labs, storage & quarters were in those areas too. I'm fairly certain the Official Blueprints published in the 70s (before movies were even a blip on fans' radar) showed officers' quarters were on these decks rather than the widest of the saucer.
This was merely to demonstrate that the ship was big enough to accommodate a crew of 430 and still have plenty of room for everything else they would need. 70% of the two largest decks could hold well over 1000 crew. That means that 19 decks and 30% of another 2 could be dedicated to cargo, science, engineering, weapons and recreation. Given that those two largest decks had 70% dedicated to crew, plus crew quarters would be smaller than the RV used as reference, there is plenty of space in the original design.
The background canon (writers' guide or whatever) - I don't know if it was supported by all of the labels shown on cabin doors - was that the majority of crew quarters were on decks 4. 5, & 6, with some elsewhere in the saucer and some in the engineering hull.
I think they should leave the original series alone and stop messing with what it established. There's so much you can do with the franchise without having to keep going back to the 23rd century and constraining your story telling to what's already been laid down, or completely disregarding it. Take discovery for example. Its supposed to be set 10 years before the original series. In no way does it fit with it. Personally I would rather they did something set after the 24th century. Like the New Next Generation kind of thing. You can have spore drives that can transport you around instantly and ships that don't even come close to fitting with the aesthetic because its set further in to the future. You may even get away with totally redesigned bald klingons!
I honestly dont mind the JJ Films since they are officialy in another Universe that was created by the destruction of Kirks Fathers ship
Meaning the Original Series and so on are still canon and excist allong the Into the Darkness Timeline
@@bastik.3011
As a star trek fan I hate that. It makes everything you've come to love and know about the series moot and pointless, It's also epic lazy writing "Gee lets just say its an alternate universe that way we don't have to try to make anything fit anything else."
If you're going to set a time before everything established, you better be damn sure you're ready, and love the series enough to make sure it all fits, and give the fans some fresh new perspectives that lead up to everything they know... If you're not, then set it after everything else and continue on with whats already established. You can push that shit a thousand years in the future if you really want... Honestly I would love to see a proper continuation of things.. So many things still left unresolved..
The Borg
The Internal change to The Dominion
Gamma Quadrant
Multiple species of aliens from alternate dimensions which you see at different points in the star trek series
Then you have Bajor joining the federation towards the end of the DS9 series with the only known stable wormhole in the galaxy. A huge story telling potential between that, Dominion, and the triangle between the federation, Klingons, and Romulans.
So many arcs in the story you can continue on with, that are ultimately begging for a new story.
yes that might be ture but you miss the point of the "reboot", the point wasto get Star Trek out to a wider audience not just to the geeks. That wouldnht been possible in the normal era
so in my opinion its far better then simply ruiningthe establisehd canon i see no negative ion the reboot@@Cramblit
@@bastik.3011
"Point is to get Star Trek out to a wider audiance not just geeks.." Then you miss the point of Star Trek lmao.. What do they want? House Wives of Star Trek? gtfo.. No I know that's not what you mean, but that's really the only way you're going to do that..
The only people who like star wars, star trek, etc. are people who like sci fi.. or in other words.. geeks..
Trying to cahnge the formula, plot, canon, lore, etc. is jsut going to do what it has always done since the beginning of man.. piss off all the people that supported it for years, and make the new people come in, laugh and leave along with the old fans.
You'd think after nearly 100 years of this same situation happening, since ever, someone would figure it the fuck out that that doesn't work...
@@bastik.3011 Except the JJ Universe is DEAD because theyfaile to make a profit. So it seems they didn't appeal to a "wider audience" after all. No, they got into brainless popcorn space movies, of which Star Wars already has a 99% market share.
The newer movies did gross more, but adjusted for inflation and budget vs. return net cost, none of the "prime" movies bombed nearly as bad.
As a person who is used to studying WW2 combat and after as well as an avid combat aviation history buff this fits spot on.
I have a set of blueprints of the original Enterprise that were published sometime in the 1970s and they were incredibly detailed and yes there is more than enough space for everything