The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > TOS Enterprise in Comparison to Botany Bay:Relative Size?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-17-2011, 12:23 PM
Futureguy Futureguy is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,153
Default TOS Enterprise in Comparison to Botany Bay:Relative Size?

This might actually be a good one to discuss, but please don't get mad at me for potentially bringing up the actual size of the "E" in any universe. I am just commenting on the relative size of the BB to the "E".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WGhvS2LGTM

@ 39 seconds I noticed that the BB is nearly the size, at maximum length and width, of the secondary hull, especially in the remastered version. I never really notice that before. I had always "remembered" thinking that somewhere I read that the BB was launched from Earth's (surface?) That was a pretty big ship to surface launch?

Anyway...BB is a lot bigger in either original or remastered than I remembered. Not that I have not watched it several times already...This is the first I've paid attention to her relative size next to the "E".


Ok...no "size" jokes either. Keep it professional...lol
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-17-2011, 12:38 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

As far as I can recall, she was supposed to have been launched from Earth in 1996. As in, a ground launch. I think that's how I've always taken it to be.

Which I guess means she was built on Earth as well.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-17-2011, 02:50 PM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,226
Default

__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-17-2011, 03:58 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,609
Default

The lights on the gantry give the size away… no bigger than the space shuttle…
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-17-2011, 04:01 PM
canadianrosey's Avatar
canadianrosey canadianrosey is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 162
Default

Looks the same as I remembered it, much better remastered.

As for dimensions, the Saturn 5 rocket that propelled the USA moon missions stood 110m tall (360ft). If the Botany Bay is half the length of the Enterprise it would be 150m tall (490ft, standing). Easily larger but not much of a stretch for a fictional human race so advanced that they're creating superhumans and building deep space sleeper ships, imo. Anyway, the Botany bay is closer to the viewer than the Enterprise so it would look bigger than it actually is.

EDIT: The most sensible size reference for the Botany Bay I can find puts it at about 121m (396ft). No biggie.

Last edited by canadianrosey : 08-17-2011 at 04:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-17-2011, 05:21 PM
Futureguy Futureguy is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC-73515 View Post
YEA.......Now THAT's what I'm talking about....... That entire launch system, based on the comparitive size of the BB to Enterprise, could nearly outsize the "E" in mass. "Big-Azz" ship...!!!

I'm counting the launch tower also...lol

Last edited by Futureguy : 08-17-2011 at 05:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-17-2011, 05:24 PM
Futureguy Futureguy is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaman View Post
The lights on the gantry give the size away… no bigger than the space shuttle…
Must have had those "dimensionally transcendental" ships back then also. Imagine fitting the crew of the BB into the Shuttle...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-17-2011, 05:47 PM
Futureguy Futureguy is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadianrosey View Post
Looks the same as I remembered it, much better remastered.
Anyway, the Botany bay is closer to the viewer than the Enterprise so it would look bigger than it actually is.

.
Yea, but just rewatching the clip, the BB is almost "cradled under the Starboard Nacelle. Couldn't be too distant. That why I noted it was about the same length and breadth, though not volume, of the secondary hull.

I'll check on the secondary hull dimensions...

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/constitution-refit.htm

Engineering hull
The secondary hull was overall shifted backward (relative to the saucer) and only roughly retained its original shape. While the old one was essentially a conical cylinder (actually without the curvature at its bottom that is visible in some side views), the new one is more rounded, like a wooden vat. The length of the engineering hull has increased from 99m to 111m, its maximum diameter by 4.6m.

_________________________
I see the length of the BB at slightly smaller than 325'. Still a pretty good size for then perceived 20th century technology. A vehicle that final size being launched into space should have taken quite an impressive launch system to match. Also a lot of dead tonnage for the Enterprise to tractor about.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-17-2011, 06:12 PM
canadianrosey's Avatar
canadianrosey canadianrosey is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futureguy View Post
I see the length of the BB at slightly smaller than 325'. Still a pretty good size for then perceived 20th century technology. A vehicle that final size being launched into space should have taken quite an impressive launch system to match. Also a lot of dead tonnage for the Enterprise to tractor about.
Boosters fall away, external fuel tanks are jettisoned. Tonnage problem solved. I've never heard of a spaceship that needed it's launch system to stay with it in space, just to get it into space where onboard engines and thrusters take over the workload.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-17-2011, 07:34 PM
Futureguy Futureguy is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadianrosey View Post
Boosters fall away, external fuel tanks are jettisoned. Tonnage problem solved. I've never heard of a spaceship that needed it's launch system to stay with it in space, just to get it into space where onboard engines and thrusters take over the workload.
Yea, but the remaining tonnage belonging to the BB and it being as big as I figure would have taken a very massive launch system. One that would have dwarfed anything in our world.

I guess the near-equivilant would be a launch system that would take an entire, 3 stage, Saturn V assembly even into LEO.

An even bigger one would be needed to get the ship started into an interplanetary trajectory where the BB's nuclear engines would take over. Darn big and heavy ship IMHO. The crew was in a hurry to get away and possibly out of range of possibly being shot down.

Writing of that episode did not allow taking into account a secret launch of that caliber. Would be like launching a Moon Shot after Apollo 17. Something that big would have also been difficult (impossible) to prepare and hide. (But I am not going to knock the episode. It is one of my favorites...)

It's just realizing the probability of the BB being of such size and a product of the represented 20th century, it being built using those bulky transistor circuits...lol
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:07 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.