View Single Post
Old May 16 2013, 10:27 PM   #271
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
You repeatedly said 350m for the new Enterprise's overall length. I gave you a little more, 366m, the stated concept design size. Now you're telling me it's not enough to fit?
Here are the figures I cited at the beginning of this thread:

- Primary hull diameter = 238 m
- Secondary hull length = 189 m
- Total length (excluding nacelles) = 343 m
- Height = 97.5 m
- Max. width of secondary hull = 45 m
- Max. height of secondary hull = 39 m (measured from base of neck)
- Width of hanger deck (at doors) = 26 m
- height of hanger doors = 8.5 m
- Bridge viewscreen / window = 8.5 m
- Round porthole window diameter = 0.6m
- Diameter of "bridge" dome = 9 m
- Bridge diameter = 18m (assuming it fills the space between the two "side" windows)

Based on the measurements I made of the diagrams you provided links for, that's what it was, assuming the hatches were 2.5m in diameter. Make them an unusual 3m, and you have a hanger deck of width 32m, and a bow-to-stern length of 410m. Still nowhere near near 725m.

This makes no sense. Why would the wall be visible in the adjacent window? It's clearly another room or hallway.
Basic perspective, as taught in high school art. I even drew a comparison.
Again, your drawings show nothing except a biased "guess" of where the wall ends to suit your argument. I think you're mistaken that they actually modeled the inside of the rooms to match what you see outside. More likely, they simply superimposed an image of rooms through the window.

There would be room enough. As I said before, we see the deck heights in the corridor junction.
I see hallways that are about 10ft tall according to the interior shots, consistent with a typical building. What are you referencing?

Look, I'm really not against it being "slightly" bigger than the original size. But over 700m? That's just not sensible, and is simply BIG for the sake of being "BIG!!!!"
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote