Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

[Graham Kennedy]

The idea that a starship whose engines can propel it to a fair percentage of lightspeed couldn't lift itself against 1 g of gravity is an absurdity.

[Aaron]

You can see what looks like the secondary hull off to the right in there as well.

[Sionnach Glic]

As well as what could be nacelles.

[BigJKU316]

The latest from EAS. Analysis to follow tomorrow. In the meantime, goodnight all.

Now that is a way to overthink something. Sure there are plotholes and inconsistencies but imho not more as in other startrek productions or your average VOY or ENT episode.

About the point on building ships planetside which he claims is never seen: I do believe we see a picture of Utopia Planetia showing us a Galaxy saucer which is build on the surface of Mars. Sure Mars has probably a bit less gravity, but a planet nonetheless. (Now iirc the showed the picture in another multiverse but since Worf didn't object I guess we can use it)

I would actually argue that, assuming the ship can be built in a manner that it suffers no penalty from leaving or being constructed in the planets gravity, it makes a lot more sense to build as much as you can on the surface of a planet rather than in orbit. The biggest drawback I see is that your structural strength will have to be somehow tied to the ground and would be dealing with forces it would not necessarily be designed to encounter in space. However for a species with the ability to manipulate gravity this could be overcome in a variety of ways.

The main advantage is your work rate is going to be much faster (no getting into and out of your construction equipment to float around in) and you will likely be able to put far more people to work on a given project since about the worst thing that can happen is someone falls off the thing. You don't have to train your welders or electrical techs to operate in space either.

Now I don't know that you would ever build the whole ship on the ground like we see (you certainly could) but I think major sections make sense. You then haul them up and fit out the internal components in spacedock after you seal the thing up and turn on life support to free up your surface yard for more construction.

[Tyyr]

There are pros and cons to doing it either way, however we have seen before that starships can be at least partially assembled on the ground in the Star Trek universe. You can't argue that.

[Aaron]

Someone on another forum once said this in relation to Trek and gravity; "they use one magic field to go faster then light and another magic field to stick to the floor and prevent them from bouncing off the walls." A fair guess that they could build on a planet and boost up if they wanted. What's Mars anyway, 1/8th?

[Tsukiyumi]

...What's Mars anyway, 1/8th?

1/3rd, IIRC.

[Lighthawk]

...What's Mars anyway, 1/8th?

1/3rd, IIRC.

You do, .3 g.

[Captain Seafort]

It is now tomorrow, and so, as promised, the analysis.

* Starfleet's ships basically still look like they always did but are now allegedly twice as long (that's eight times the volume!).

And? Modern ships likewise all look pretty much the same, despite their differing sizes. The greater size is certainly solid proof of an early PoD, but there's nothing inherently unrealistic in the basic structure of the ship remaining the same.

in case of the Enterprise exactly every second deck would be "coincidentally" without windows

This alleged "problem" has been soundly thumped many times, but I will reiterate that it neither disproves the size of the neoE nor is unrealistic - the E-nil herself had very few windows, and on a warship (which is what a vessel of a "peacekeeping armada" is) the fewer windows that are present the better.

* The Enterprise is being built on the ground, as opposed to everything we have ever seen.

As has been pointed out already, we have seen other ships built on the ground - a GCS no less, much the same size as the neoE, in "Parallels".

* Budgineering. No other Starfleet ship ever seen from inside has a huge engineering section without recognizable decks and with a maze of water pipes.

Very true, and therefore further evidence of an early PoD.

* The transporter, phasers and other technology look and sound different than in previous Trek installments

True, as does warp drive in addition to being considerably faster than in the Geneverse. More evidence for an early PoD. It is, however, worth noting that transporter and weapons effects have historically changed over time and the equipment different species understandably behaves slightly differently.

shields are inefficient.

This is not something I've noticed - further clarification of this point would be appreciated.

* Already the U.S.S. Kelvin that predates Nero's incursion may be far too big with a crew of 800 and its technology is different than we should expect it from a ship of her time.

Indeed, yet again suggesting an early PoD

* The Narada, a monster ship armed to the teeth, is not really credible as a 24th century mining vessel either, at least not with additional non-canon explanations.

This is indeed very unusual, however we have seen Geneverse ships of such size, albeit rarely - the Voth city ship and the large Dominion ships of WYLB to name two examples.

* Realistically Pavel Chekov can't be genetically the same person as in the Prime Universe, because the new Pavel is four years older and has to be, otherwise there would be a 13-year-old ensign on the bridge. This is not a big continuity issue per se, but we would want him to be the same person, wouldn't we?

None of the individuals in the new film are "the same people" as those with the same names in the Geneverse. This is most obvious in Kirk's case, but it's observable to a lesser extent in every single one of them - it's inevitable from the differences in their experiences.

* There are at least a dozen new aliens (probably more like 20) that we have never seen before, neither in the 22nd nor in the 24th century. Actually, every single alien in the movie aside from the Vulcans, Romulans and the Orion has to be classified as a new species. How slim is the chance of seeing them only in "Star Trek (2009)", and hardly any known species besides them?

In a Federation of a hundred and fifty members, not at all odd.

* In strong contrast to what it would have been in any other Trek series or movie, no one tries, no one even suggests to fix the extreme damage that Nero has done. Everyone accepts their fate.

While it has only been commented on IU once (by the alternate Picard in YE), the parallel-universe model is the one that best fits Trek time-travel as a whole. It is the only one that adequately explains the persistence of entities between timelines, as seen in YE-Redemption and in First Contact.

The question is how far we can explain these and several more differences to the previous 600+ episodes and 10 movies. Is it sufficient to assume that "Star Trek (2009)" takes place in the Abramsverse, a parallel universe or timeline, one where everything has taken a different development after Nero's incursion? Does the Abramsverse have enough time for its differences to unfold? Or are the changes so extreme that we would need to declare the new continuity a total reboot, and effectively non-canon in the scope of the old one?

This statement represents a black-and-white fallacy, albeit one that is mitigated by the following theories, as one does not need to declare the Abramsverse utterly separate in order to explain the differences extant at the time of Nero's appearance, merely that the Abramsverse had already diverged from the Geneverse at some unknown earlier point.

A: Total reboot, no continuity with old Trek The Abramsverse is a completely separate entity, without any ties to the old continuity. It is a total reboot just like the one of "Battlestar Galactica", although somewhat less radical because at least the characters are preserved for what it's worth. Everything in the reboot is allowed and even encouraged to look and feel different than in the old continuity. If anything is still the same, it is rather a homage to classic Trek than an indicator that continuity has been preserved.

A possibility, and certainly the accurate one in an OOU context. It is not, however, required to explain the situation IU.

We may even excuse why no one bothers to undo the damage that Nero has inflicted, because time travel may not be familiar in this universe and because it may be customary to accept a destiny as God-given.

Alternately, time-travel may be more familiar, works in the same way it has historically in Trek, and everyone realises that an attempt to fix it will merely result in an additional parallel universe.

We may still choose to ignore Orci's intention and focus on what is actually in the movie.

I fail to see how this is a "choice" with regards in IU analysis - under that model, Orci's comments simply do not exist.

But the story of "Star Trek (2009)" would become meaningless under the assumption that the world of Star Trek, and in particular TOS, has never existed before. Because we have no idea what history would have been like without Nero's interference, and it wouldn't matter that Nero came from the future and changed a history we never knew. The movie wouldn't work, as it would lose its significance in the eyes of Trek fans. And it would sort of require for anyone who is at least a bit familiar with Star Trek to try to watch it with the eyes of someone who has never seen any Trek before.

Why? Kirk is a different individual in the Abramsverse, shaped by different experiences, but he's still James Tiberius Kirk. Likewise, while we do not know what the future would have held without Nero's involvement, how does that affect the story itself, which is fundamentally about saving the Earth (for the umpteenth time in Trek), and the growth of a rebel and loose cannon into a leader.

Well, we may still decide to ignore the movie as a part of Trek's so far uninterrupted continuity because we want to preserve the old Trek from destruction or from falling into oblivion, or because we simply don't like it.

How does the existence of the Abramsverse destroy the Geneverse, or send it into oblivion?

Anyway, with Nero's interference being the point of divergence we have 25 years for the new timeline to unfold. But is that really enough to explain away the diverging history and the different look and feel of the movie? It is sufficient to explain why Chekov is four years older in this new timeline, although this would mean he is a genetically different person and not at all like "our" Chekov (like possibly some other young crew members such as Uhura too). It certainly wouldn't really alleviate the problem of the many new aliens that appear in Starfleet. And what about oversized and overcrewed ships? Starships being assembled on the ground? The built-in brewery? Seeing that many of these problems already apply to the Kelvin and the Narada, the appearance of the latter in the 23rd century can't be the reason for all that.

Indeed

in one or two scenes the Enterprise looks huge (a size that is contradicted by the ship's general structure anyway)

The size of the Enterprise is consistent throughout those scenes where analysis of its size is possible, and is in no way contradicted by it's structure, as I've already said.

there is still the dilemma of explaining why everyone, including old Spock, accepts the new timeline with its disastrous events as if nothing could or nothing should be done to correct it.

Once more, previous Trek time-travel incidents confirm the many-universe model, with each change generating another new timetime.

C: Preserved continuity, earlier point of divergence The Abramsverse is a new timeline, but the explanation that Nero created it in the first place is not sufficient. The 25 years from the destruction of the Kelvin by a mystery ship to the launch of the Enterprise could not explain the fundamental differences, and most obviously already the Kelvin is a lot bigger than any Starfleet ship of the time should be. There may be a still earlier point of divergence that is not part of the movie though.

Finally, we get to the option that most closely fits the available evidence.

But it doesn't explain why the ship designs still look like they are small and why the Enterprise has not a single window on exactly every second deck (obviously, because it was designed to be half as long).

Repetition of mistakes that have been noted and corrected further up.

It may work better for those fans who believe only what they see, exactly what they see and everything they see.

I.e. those who apply suspension of disbelief. You can either analyse Trek as a work of fiction, or as if it were real. If you apply the latter then what you see is what you get.

As it is not hinted at in the movie in any fashion, it would be pure conjecture to nail down an exact point of divergence. Some fans surmise it should have been at least another 25 years prior to the Kelvin incident, to justify at least that already the Kelvin is bigger than we would expect from a ship of this time. Other theories link the point of divergence to the time travel in "Star Trek: First Contact", and they go as far as claiming that the complete series Star Trek Enterprise already takes place in the parallel universe that the Narada would enter at the beginning of "Star Trek (2009)". Well, this is contradicted by the continuity of 24th century events that predate "First Contact" with those that follow and just as well by the appearance of the Defiant from the Prime Universe in ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly". It would better be a still unknown temporal incident that created the Abramsverse in the first place.

Agreed.

most fans will explicitly or silently supplement it with their personal conjecture and hence leave the common ground of canon.

True, but this is the case with all aspects of Trek, not merely the origins of the Abramsverse.

Even worse, if it is possible to explain away the problems of "Star Trek (2009)" as being the result of an undetermined temporal incursion, probably of one that has never been shown or mentioned before, it opens a can or worms. Because this precedent would be an invitation to explain away any discontinuity in any previous Trek series as being the result of a time travel.

Certain other discontinuities already exist and are canonically the result of time travel - the existence of Sela for example. However, in the majority of cases discontinuities can be far more simply explained by inaccuracies in measurement or poor memory on the part of IU individuals - only the extreme nature of the differences observed in the Abramsverse require the conclusion that the timeline had been changed prior to Nero's arrival.

I think it's just as well the vague feeling that the allegedly huge ships of the Abramsverse may make sense if only more time were available to develop them.

It's not merely a "vague feeling", it's engineering fact. A PoD in 1915 would not allow the Yamato-class to balloon to half a million tons, and a PoD a quarter-century before her launch would not allow the neoE to balloon by almost an order of magnitude, quite apart from the fact that the Kelvin's design is both larger than the E-nil and technologically consistent with the neoE.

Well, and that I may give the Abramsverse a lower weight than the Prime Universe if the two are in conflict.

If the two were in conflict then they can be considered separately, just as the MU and the Prime Geneverse would be considered separately.

So I may come to considerably different conclusions than other sites such as most importantly Memory Alpha regarding the size of the new Enterprise and other issues. But that is rather the result of a different weighing of facts than of a fundamentally different view of the movie.

I fail to see how facts can be weighted. If the visual evidence shows that the neoE is 7-800m long, then the neoE is 7-800m long. This is not a case of occasional outliers, such as the 50m Defiant in FC, but of consistent depictions. If the "principles of starship design" say that it can't be that big then either those principle are different in the Abramsverse, or they are wrong.

The more polite critics at least tell me they presuppose that the Abramsverse predates Nero's arrival (according to what I call theory C), that therefore the ships could be very well huge, and that all my reasons why they should still be small are invalid. While they don't acknowledge that their theory C only alleviates the problem of the size but not of the ship design as it is only a quantitative "improvement" over B, I can still understand if they decide for themselves that the Enterprise is 725m long based on some visual evidence.

As has already been pointed out, the ship's design has no bearing on it's measured size.

Comments/critiques welcome folks.

[Captain Seafort]

Bloody hell, that's a big post.

[Mark]

Dude, how long did that take you?

[Tyyr]

I'll go through it in depth later but the structure of the Neo-E doesn't mean it has to be 366m long. The general structure of the ship simply follows the pattern all of the Big-E's have followed. The basic design of the Enterprise be it original, A,B,C,D,E or Neo are all very similar and range in sizes from ~300m to over 700 meters. The basic structure doesn't work? So how do you explain the D and E?

[Captain Seafort]

Dude, how long did that take you?

A long time. Beyond that I'm not sure - I wasn't keeping track

I'll go through it in depth later but the structure of the Neo-E doesn't mean it has to be 366m long. The general structure of the ship simply follows the pattern all of the Big-E's have followed. The basic design of the Enterprise be it original, A,B,C,D,E or Neo are all very similar and range in sizes from ~300m to over 700 meters. The basic structure doesn't work? So how do you explain the D and E?

Indeed, and as I've commented in my analysis how different are modern ships, regardless of size? Indeed, why is the structure even relevant? We know how big the ship is from the shuttlebay scene, and complaining that the scene is "wrong" because of some preconceived notion of starship design rules is stupid. Evidence should shape theories, not the other way round.

[Tyyr]

* Starfleet's ships basically still look like they always did but are now allegedly twice as long (that's eight times the volume!).

And? Modern ships likewise all look pretty much the same, despite their differing sizes. The greater size is certainly solid proof of an early PoD, but there's nothing inherently unrealistic in the basic structure of the ship remaining the same.

Starfleet's main ships have traditionally basically all looked very much alike. Just look at the progression of the Enterprise from original to E. If you want to use this argument against the Neo-E then you have to also apply it to the D and E who are both "allegedly" twice as large as the original Enterprise but the same basic shape.

in case of the Enterprise exactly every second deck would be "coincidentally" without windows

This alleged "problem" has been soundly thumped many times, but I will reiterate that it neither disproves the size of the neoE nor is unrealistic - the E-nil herself had very few windows, and on a warship (which is what a vessel of a "peacekeeping armada" is) the fewer windows that are present the better.

I wouldn't say it's a slam dunk case that fewer windows are better given that we really don't know the properties of the hull vs. the windows but on the general principle that a lack of windows means the 725m Neo E makes no sense is ridiculous I agree. If anything the windows only discount sizes below ~320m, over 390m to about 650m and then over 800m. In other words the windows will mostly support ships with saucer thicknesses that let those windows fit comfortably into the number of decks they have and discount those where in the windows would be at foot level, three decks high, etc. They don't definitively rule one way or another on 366m vs. 725m.

* The Enterprise is being built on the ground, as opposed to everything we have ever seen.

As has been pointed out already, we have seen other ships built on the ground - a GCS no less, much the same size as the neoE, in "Parallels".

In a world full of tractor beams, grav plating, structural integrity fields, and warp drive how can you discount the ship's construction on the ground? Do I care for it? Not particularly but it's there on screen and there's no pressing reason why it couldn't be done.

* Budgineering. No other Starfleet ship ever seen from inside has a huge engineering section without recognizable decks and with a maze of water pipes.

Umm... so? Yes, it doesn't fit in perfectly with other engineering areas we've seen but it's not something you can immediately discount for the hell of it. Besides, most industrial sites, power plants, and ship engineering spaces don't have recognizable decks in the style you see in Starfleet ships. Personally I liked the turn towards a more industrial design.

* The transporter, phasers and other technology look and sound different than in previous Trek installments

They look and sound different with every installment.

shields are inefficient.

This is not something I've noticed - further clarification of this point would be appreciated.

Gonna have to agree with Seafort here. We've seen plenty of cases that when faces with extremely powerful weapons the sheilds don't provide complete perfect protection.

* There are at least a dozen new aliens (probably more like 20) that we have never seen before, neither in the 22nd nor in the 24th century. Actually, every single alien in the movie aside from the Vulcans, Romulans and the Orion has to be classified as a new species. How slim is the chance of seeing them only in "Star Trek (2009)", and hardly any known species besides them?

In a Federation of a hundred and fifty members, not at all odd.

Especially given the number of Efrosians we've seen in Trek, or Denobulans, or the many other species of the week that show up and then never appear again.

* In strong contrast to what it would have been in any other Trek series or movie, no one tries, no one even suggests to fix the extreme damage that Nero has done. Everyone accepts their fate.

While it has only been commented on IU once (by the alternate Picard in YE), the parallel-universe model is the one that best fits Trek time-travel as a whole. It is the only one that adequately explains the persistence of entities between timelines, as seen in YE-Redemption and in First Contact.

Another point to make, we almost always see someone in the future watch another party go back, muck things up, and then give chase to fix it. How many times has the person from the past been the ones to try and "fix" things? On top of that, given a parallel universe style of time travel its very possible that people from the future did try to change things back, however it would make no difference to the people in the timeline where Nero mucked everything up.

in one or two scenes the Enterprise looks huge (a size that is contradicted by the ship's general structure anyway)

In every scene where you can get some perspective on the ship's size it's huge. The ship shares the same general structure as every incarnation of the Enterprise before. If that basic strcuture dictates it to be 366m then please explain how the D and E versions of the Enterprise are also less than 400m.

But it doesn't explain why the ship designs still look like they are small and why the Enterprise has not a single window on exactly every second deck (obviously, because it was designed to be half as long).

Uhh, what? When did the ship designs ever look small? Also, the only thing having windows every second deck proves is that for some reason the designers figured those decks didn't need them. You can neither confirm nor deny the ship's size through rows of windows.

It may work better for those fans who believe only what they see, exactly what they see and everything they see.

It works for those fans who accept what they are shown rather than divorcing themselves from reality and constructing a new one based on little more than, "Well I don't like it."

Well, and that I may give the Abramsverse a lower weight than the Prime Universe if the two are in conflict.

If the two get into conflict something very wierd has happened since they emphatically separated themselves in the movie.

So I may come to considerably different conclusions than other sites such as most importantly Memory Alpha regarding the size of the new Enterprise and other issues. But that is rather the result of a different weighing of facts than of a fundamentally different view of the movie.

I fail to see how facts can be weighted. If the visual evidence shows that the neoE is 7-800m long, then the neoE is 7-800m long. This is not a case of occasional outliers, such as the 50m Defiant in FC, but of consistent depictions. If the "principles of starship design" say that it can't be that big then either those principle are different in the Abramsverse, or they are wrong.

I'm in agreement with Seafort here. The evidence for a 725m Neo-E is strong bordering on overwhelming. If you don't like it than that's fine. However "I don't like it," isn't a fact though.

[BigJKU316]

I like the theory that the POD (point of divergence) is Star Trek: First Contact. It makes a lot of sense and you don't have to do much. Knowing what is ahead a bit the early leaders of earths programs (Cochran essentially) could have just pushed a little harder and faster, which sort of snowballs into what you see in the Abramsverse.