King: why do you always compare 2009 Enterprise pics with 1966 Enterprise pics? You immediately handicap the latter by its limited budget, special effects, and the fact the production crew could care less whether the model matched the sets. Why not take pics from the movies where the viewscreen is bigger, the shuttle bay / cargo section is bigger, engineering is bigger, etc...?
HERE is the TMP Enterprise
Browsing through the archives, I found the following thread:
Didn't read through the whole thing, but based on those images, I could fit a big fucking "brewery" in that space -- particularly if the entire secondary hull is devoted to engineering + shuttle bay.
As you can see, the cargo/shuttle bay takes up most of the interior of the secondary hull - and it's still only 4 decks tall (although never all at once). The new Enterprise'a shuttle bay is four decks tall all at once, and that's just the smallest end of the engineering hull.
HERE is the new Enterprise for comparison
is a look at that brewery/engineering section that's behind the enourmous shuttlebay.
The Enterprise model was shrunk to fit over the power plant/shipyard location. In that shot, the ship still has all it's large-scale details, including the five-deck saucer rim. They simply shrunk the model. There is a mishmash of walkways, some scaled for a 366m Enterprise, others for a 725m+ ship.
And HERE is the USS Kelvin
, just because.
Whether or not you agree with their choices or reasoning, the people who made the film designed and detailed them to be these sizes, as you can see. It's ridiculous and arrogant that a fan thinks they somehow know better. There is no way to reconcile the details shown on-screen with a ship the size of the classic TV series or movie Enterprises.