Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1

    Size comparison between Trek and SW ships

    I know some of you MM folks are Trek fans and collectors, and so this will give you an idea of just how out-of-scale that MM Millennium Falcon you have sitting next to the MM Borg Cube is.

    It's a repost of what I put in the MISC section earlier:

    I decided to be very complete and made up photo examples of the scale difference between several Enterprises, the Falcon, and a Star Destroyer. You can see all this at the page on my site, and I triple-checked the math on each (I quadruple-checked the math on the Falcon, you'll see why when you go there ):

    http://www.geocities.com/jeditricks/trekwars

    BTW, this little task gave me a new appreciation for the metric system. If I had been converting feet or yards into what I needed, I wouldn't have been able to handle it.
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    "In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"
    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

  2. #2

    Red face and your pernt is???????????

    size dosn't matter when playing with toys!

    but of course, you already knew that, with this being the micro machines section and all!



    you'll have to excuse me, as my die cast gian speeder is currently engaged against my applause floating cloud city!

    np: they might be giants - she's actual size
    Last edited by good shot jansen; 09-06-2001 at 12:28 PM.
    0 /// /// F=MA~~~~~~~~~~~~
    what's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding

  3. #3
    Hey JT

    Great work - the comparisson between the Ent D and Star Destroyer is superb.

    BC3

  4. #4

    I beg to differ. :D

    Actually, I've thought about the different sizes of SW vs. ST ships at various times and thought about it. Ok, look at a shot of the bridge on a Star Destroyer, then look at an external view of the bridge and compared a human from the interior bridge shot with the rest of the ship, and then do the same with the hullwalk scene in First Contact and compare... Unless someone can prove me wrong because I've only done this in my mind, but the Enterprise-E would be a morsal (ok maybe a little bigger than a morsal) to a Star Destroyer. Also, if you look at the DS9 scene where the Enterprise-D is docked on a DS9 docking pylon and then compare that scene with a Defiant docked with DS9, then it will show that the Enterprise-D and Defiant are just about the same size (same goes for Voyager) and then if you watch First Contact at when the Enterprise-E fly in front of the Defiant, you'll see that the Soveriegn class isn't as small as thought, with all those scenes combined into one big picture, it would be shown that the Enterprise-E isn't only almost as big as DS9, but also that the Enterprise-D, Voyager and Defiant are just tiny things compared to it.

    I also believe the Falcon is bigger just because if the Enterprise-E would be rather small when compared to a Star Destroyer, and the Defiant, Enterprise-D and Defiant are small when compared with the Enterprise-E let alone a star destroyer, just think how the Enterprise-A would be! I doubt the Enterprise-A would be bigger than a shield generator sphere on the Star Destroyer and that the Falcon could possibly be at least a fourth of the size of the Enterprise-A. For comparison, look at Star Trek: The Motion Picture when they walkout onto the upper saucer section of the hull on the Enterprise and then look in First Contact at them walking on the hull of the Enterprise-E. I think movie scenes and such should come first when it comes to information stuff like this.
    Last edited by LTBasker; 09-06-2001 at 07:45 PM.
    "Hokey packaging and ancient gimmicks are no match for good detail on your figure, kid."
    "I am a Klingot from Oklahoma in human boy form."
    "We came, we saw, we conquered... We, woke up!"

  5. #5
    Sorry Basker, but the math on these just don't lie. I was extremely careful with the ratios and numbers concerning the dimensions here, I can't help it that Lucas let the Star Destroyer go out looking the way it did while claiming it was 1600 meters long, that's just how long the dang thing is and I can't control your perception of things. Same goes for the Starfleet ships, you are seeing things from a forced perspective, but the raw numbers on these clearly show that the Ent-E is smaller than the Ent-D. Heck, there are almost twice as many decks on the Ent-D as the Ent-E (not counting that flubbed line about deck 26 in "First Contact", that was just a mistake, the ship has 24 decks). In length, the Ent-E is nearly half as long as the Star Destroyer, hardly a "morsel".

    Also, as for the EVA scenes in First Contact, the heroes seemed REALLY small on the hull in the CGI shot, so that's the one you should judge, and keep in mind that the Enterprise-E is smaller than the Ent-D, even though it's longer.

    With DS9, there's no way I can think of to judge those sizes together since the Defiant was always docked at the outer docking ring, while the Enterprise was seen docked at the upper pylon, so it's a question of perspectives. This is ultimately what I think your issue here is Basker, the films all use different perspectives and close-ups and other camera tricks that make things seem bigger or smaller than they are, but if the models are made properly to the scale sizes given, then they will actually be the sizes in my pics.

    Ultimately, what it comes down to is this: If we were discussing something that wasn't constant between the 2 series or even within 1 like warp speed (Trek has 2 different warp scales, with TNG's warp 9 being like warp 14 in TOS), I'd hesitate to do something like this, but we're talking about solid, specific numbers based on official sizes from the scale of the model's designs - both done in the same, unwavering measuring system - then I am very confident in the images I made up.
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    "In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"
    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

  6. #6
    So does that mean the Akira has 15 Photon Torpedo launchers because it was announced by the creator of the ship that it did. Seriously. Well I loaded Behind the Magic, it does say 1,600 meters BUT, it also says it holds this:
    36,810 On-Board Personnel
    275 Gunners
    9,700 Troops
    72 TIE Fighters
    12 Landing Barges
    20 AT-ATs
    30 AT-STs
    15 Imperial Landing Craft
    8 Lambda Shuttles
    5 Skip Ray Blastboats
    and 36,000 metric tons of cargo.
    Now that is kind of odd if you say the Enterprise-E is half the size of a Star Destroyer. Especially if the Enterprise-E wouldn't even be able to hold 10 shuttles (and if you count 3-4 TIE Fighters behind one another count as one shuttle length wise) and I doubt it could even hold 1,000 members on board let alone all of that other stuff. Even if the size comes from Lucas himself, I doubt he put that much thought into it and probably didn't want to get that involved with it therefore just making up a size he felt we would accept. I was exaggerating at least on the Falcon/Enterprise-A scale though, I would say the Falcon is at least just a bit smaller than the saucer section of the Enterprise-A or at least bigger than what that website points it out to be.
    Just my own opinion. (which is most likely a piece of string in the wind. My idea of the ship sizes (not gonna say they're correct, but then again I'm not gonna say anything's correct unless it comes from the designers themselves.) are in an iage attached to this post, it's kind of small but I had to keep it down below 20KB.

    Ya also gotta consider the size the Falcon was compared to the Star Destroyer in ESB when it was magnetized onto it and shuttle sizes also. Might try taking a pic of the guys going EVA on the hull of the Enterprise-E in First Contact then looking for a shuttle pic from TNG that's in the same perspective then grabbing a pic of a TNG episode with people standing around the same shuttle type in a shuttle bay along with the same type of shuttle in an exterior scene of the Enterprise-D then comparing all the images you might get a not so correct size. I haven't tried it, but I might. I understand though that in movies and such, people (Especially Rick I-Want-Ridged-Klingons-for-prequel-series Berman) try to exaggerate a little more on sizes of things so people are in more awe than before and it brings more money and crowds.

    Really, this type of issue is tough for everyone because everyone has their own aspect on what to listen to and what not to. Me, I'm mostly trying to pay attention to the show and movies and the size of any studio models that are were on screen together. (It helps.) Like with pics of studio models that were shown in the same scene together of an SSD and SD in ROTJ were used to proved that the SSD isn't however so long it was reported to be, but with those models it was shown that 11 SD studio models can fit into the length of an SSD studio model perfectly. And no, the shots of each ships weren't in serperate focus. Mostly I'm trying to get true facts so everyone won't not be mad at me for having a seperate opinion on this, hehe. I did make the Enterprise-D a little big though in the pic since as I think you pointed out, it can't really be compared right since it's farther/higher than shots of the Defiant. (Never do this stuff when you don't get any sleep for awhile, heh. )
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	shipcomparisons.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	12.1 KB 
ID:	61  
    Last edited by LTBasker; 09-07-2001 at 09:46 AM.
    "Hokey packaging and ancient gimmicks are no match for good detail on your figure, kid."
    "I am a Klingot from Oklahoma in human boy form."
    "We came, we saw, we conquered... We, woke up!"

  7. #7
    If Paramount said the Akira-class had 15 torpedo launchers, then it has 15 torpedo launchers unless the filming model is EXTREMELY specifc that it does not. However, Paramount doesn't say this officially and the CG model was never shown close-up in the film.

    Now, look at what you said:
    Now that is kind of odd if you say the Enterprise-E is half the size of a Star Destroyer.
    It should be odd, I didn't say that. I said it was nearly half as LONG as a Star Destroyer, not half the size. There is a biiiig difference between these two statements. The Star Destroyer is one big, bulky starship with only one separate area from the main body, the bridge, but the Enterprise is not a solid body, it's several segments that form the entire length. However, with length, width, and height, there are no surprises, you don't have to worry about bulkheads or corridors or equipment, you just have the exterior measurements of the vessel.

    You also state that the Ent-E couldn't hold 10 shuttles or even probably 1,000 people, but the Enterprise-E can hold as many as 4,000 people in tight quarters, nearly 13,000 in evacuation emergencies, and has a normal compliment of 11 shuttlepods, 20 shuttlecraft of various designs, 5 workbees, and the captain's yacht. Let's compare that to the larger, yet shorter Ent-D, which usually holds over 1,000 people, can hold 5,000 people in tight quarters while keeping enough room for 200 VIPs, can hold over 15,000 in emergency evacuation purposes, and has a normal compliment of 16 pods, 40 shuttlecraft of various designs, 10 workbees, 5 sphinx workpods, and the captain's yacht. The Ent-d is a spacious starship with tons of scientific eqipment and laboratories, lots of crew support areas like holodecks, ten-forward, and the arboretum; while the Star Destroyer is a close-quarters military ship that has no major scientific equipment.

    This picture of yours has the Enterprise-D being a staggering 274 meters long in comparison to the Ent-E's normal length and the Falcon is large 90 meters long (that'd be about the size of a football field). However, when grappled to the spine of the Star Destroyer, the Falcon was at a diagonal angle and smaller than the area hull beneath it, and that hull wasn't even 1/10th the width of the ship. Now, the only picture of the Ent-D's shuttlecraft being opened has several type-7 shuttlecraft being blown out of it, and they were tiny compared to the giant door. Think about this, the bridge of the Ent-D - which is quite a bit smaller than her main shuttlebay - comfortably holds 21 people in separate seats with plenty of space to walk around, as well as the 4 turbolifts (one in the turbolift holding area behind the main turboshaft in the rear port section of bridge) which safely hold 8 each, the observation lounge which comfortably holds 14-20 people, and the captain's ready room which holds around 6-8 people (2 couches, the bathroom, 2 seats in front of and 1 seat behind the main desk). So if the bridge, which is really REALLY small compared to the rest of the saucer section, is nowhere near as big as the Falcon, then the Falcon must be able to hold hundreds of - maybe even a thousand - people; but we know it doesn't, the Falcon is a light freighter that even on the interior sets couldn't hold 75 people in cramped quarters unless you chopped them into bits .


    Like with pics of studio models that were shown in the same scene together of an SSD and SD in ROTJ were used to proved that the SSD isn't however so long it was reported to be, but with those models it was shown that 11 SD studio models can fit into the length of an SSD studio model perfectly.
    The models are all filmed in the movie separately and then composited together using the proper film ratios. The actual models comparisons to each other have no bearing here, the Rebel Blockade Runner model in ANH was larger than the Star Destroyer model, yet we all know that a Star Destroyer is much, much larger than the Tantive IV.

    Ultimately, you are trying to compare interior sets with exterior, but on the Enterprise, the sets are smaller than the exterior, while on the Falcon, the interiors are much bigger than the exterior. I mean, look at the Enterprise in ST:TMP when they dock at the V'ger main complex and you'll see Kirk walk out onto the hull with McCoy, Ilia, and Decker, but they're all nearly as big as the dang bridge! My comparisons are not of the sets, only of the vessels themselves even as they appeared together. If I were to use our physical model data and set data instead of the fantasy design specs of each ship, then the Star Destroyer would only be 350 meters long instead of 1,600 according to the Chronicles book. When using official data, there is no "from a certain point of view", there is only solid mathmatics based upon the best data given, and the biggest use of mathmatics to film these, ratios, is the easiest one to use here.
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    "In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"
    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

  8. #8
    But what about the new version of DS9's opening credits (I say 'new', but please bear in mind I'm bound by the negligent BBC attitude to showing these episodes) They clearly show the workmen on EVA on the DS9 pylon so this could be a unique source for absolute size comparisons as you have man's [or humanoid] size in relation to lots of other ships.

    Hopefully the shot with the flying workmen helps in some way.

    jeddah

  9. #9
    Hmm, JediTricks, you do have a lot good points and this is obviously a small battle I can't really get the better points on (I know that's not the point but still... hehe ) but actually it was an ILM guy who created the Akira class ship (which is also why two millenium falcons are flying around in the battle in First Contact) and he said that it hid 15 torpedo tubes. I think because of SW he was exaggerating on the tubes and didn't think of the ship itself. Truly, I think the sizes on the SW ships aren't right (least on the Imperial Destroyers) and they didn't really try putting much thought into them since they were just meant to be big and intimidating. As for the ST ships, mostly by what I'm going by on the Enterprises is each Enterprise is supposed to be some new ship, a refit to new classes except for the refit Enterprise and Enterprise-A but I think they just made the A the same class as the refit Enterprise because could you imagine a Miranda class Enterprise? hehe. Anyway, what I was going by was that since it's THE Enterprise so I figured each ship would be bigger than the previous Enterprise but then last night I remember that the Excelsior class is smaller than the Constitution class and the Enterprise-B was Excelsior class. So maybe you're right, I dunno, I just wish Berman and them would pay more attention to this kind of stuff. But still, the Star Destroyer does seem to be way bigger...

    BTW, sorry about the Ent. E thing, I didn't know it could hold that much, I was assuming because I thought that none of the Starfleet ships could hold that much. Still I'd like to see it hold 20 AT-ATs.
    Last edited by LTBasker; 09-08-2001 at 08:34 PM.
    "Hokey packaging and ancient gimmicks are no match for good detail on your figure, kid."
    "I am a Klingot from Oklahoma in human boy form."
    "We came, we saw, we conquered... We, woke up!"

  10. #10
    Jeddah, the DS9 sizes seem to be all over the map to me, you've got workbees seemingly larger than the pylons, but workbees are barely 2m long while the DS9 pylons are big enough to hold 2 turboshafts and ducting and some corridors. Then there's Ops, the center of the whole station, is it that little pin at the top or is it the windowed area? I don't actually know, I thought the windowed area was the upper windows of the prominade at the central core, with the habitat ring being the middle ring... I guess I'll never trust the DS9 sizes completely.


    Basker, with SW designs, I think they did put a lot of thought into that stuff, Joe Johnston and Ralph McQuarrie seemed to really be on the ball with such things. As to the Star Destroyer, it was designed to be a mile long, that's why it's 1600 meters (that's .99 of a US standard mile). I think a mile long by over half a mile in width by around 900 feet tall at it's tallest point of just the main body, not counting the massive bridge and dorsal spine, that's pretty danged big IMO, I think those WEG numbers (I'm pretty sure that "20 AT-ATs, 30 AT-STs, etc." thing was W.E.G.'s doing, they messed up a lot of SW with that stuff IMO, going beyond EU into the realm of dippiness, like Decipher is now) might actually fit into a starship that's a mile long and half a mile wide.

    I hate to do this, but the Excelsior-class starship is quite a bit larger than the Constitution-class, not only do the spacedock scenes of ST3 serve this point, but so does the ST Encyclopedia; and the Ent-B was slightly larger than other Excelsiors (the Ent-B is the only Excelsior-class variant I can think of right now).

    If you hollowed up the Ent-D's saucer and collapsed all the legs on the AT-ATs, I'm positive you could fit 20 in there. (Thank goodness for the stardrive section's bridge or how would they fly the ship? )

    Berman's people do pay a lot of attention to such things, but since they're filming in ratios and they're now switching over to all-CGI, it's very hard to force perspectives for the ratio, so like Earth's moon looks tiny and clear from outside your window at night, so too do Runabouts compared to the Defiant and such. (Ugh, Runabouts are like the worst of the lot too, they're finely-built models that are used to be a slightly larger shuttlecraft OR a ship nearly the beam of the Defiant, holding something like 100 people in evac on the show!!!)
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    "In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"
    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO