RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,959
Posts: 5,391,421
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 448
Newest member: Jadakiss

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 23 2013, 12:59 AM   #721
Killerprise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post

I would have accepted the 725 meter length if they had accurately scaled the ship to reflect that and included blueprints but unfortunately it isn't accurately scaled and there are no blueprints so their empty claims are just that. As for the 289m length as gospel, I haven't been given reason to doubt 289 meters, if someone wants to come up with a hyper accurate length for the TOS Enterprise go for it but the chances of that are slim to none.
Your argument kinda falls apart if you have no problem with one being inaccurately scaled.
I do have a problem with it, hence why I do not believe their 725m claim but there is nothing I can do about it so I'm not going to worry or give a shit. Freedom of choice is beautiful, you can choose to believe 725, I can choose not to. Nuff said. This thread should be called size debate/old comment re-highlighting.
__________________
Real Star Trek fans question everything, fake Trek fans blindly accept everything.
Killerprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 01:05 AM   #722
Killerprise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

This is crude but to the point.

__________________
Real Star Trek fans question everything, fake Trek fans blindly accept everything.
Killerprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 01:06 AM   #723
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post

I do have a problem with it, hence why I do not believe their 725m claim but there is nothing I can do about it so I'm not going to worry or give a shit. Freedom of choice is beautiful, you can choose to believe 725, I can choose not to. Nuff said. This thread should be called size debate/old comment re-highlighting.
You can believe it's twenty meters or six miles long if you want.

But complaining about inconsistencies in one but not being bothered by it in another is simply hypocritical. For as long as I've been a fan, people have been debating the size of the original Enterprise because they believed the sets as depicted couldn't fit inside a 947' ship, hence some believe the ship is 1080'.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 01:38 AM   #724
Killerprise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post

I do have a problem with it, hence why I do not believe their 725m claim but there is nothing I can do about it so I'm not going to worry or give a shit. Freedom of choice is beautiful, you can choose to believe 725, I can choose not to. Nuff said. This thread should be called size debate/old comment re-highlighting.
You can believe it's twenty meters or six miles long if you want.

But complaining about inconsistencies in one but not being bothered by it in another is simply hypocritical. For as long as I've been a fan, people have been debating the size of the original Enterprise because they believed the sets as depicted couldn't fit inside a 947' ship, hence some believe the ship is 1080'.

We'll never know until IF they try to build it. 20 meters or 6 miles? Come on that's just being sarcastic. All things considered, I think it was funny that Daniel tried to pass off the set floor plan as an actual schematic for the ship. That was funny considering both the transporter room and sickbay are on lower decks. The difference between 947 and 1080 isn't much, 133 feet I don't think humans will ever build a real Enterprise, we're way too fucked up as a civilization to really come together and reach the stars at least in the utopian Gene Roddenberry since. We'll probably have personal starships with secret weapons on them. Anyway it looks like this episode of starship size debate is over. Until next time, same bat time same bat channel.
__________________
Real Star Trek fans question everything, fake Trek fans blindly accept everything.
Killerprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 01:44 AM   #725
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
That was funny considering both the transporter room and sickbay are on lower decks.
I'm not so sure about the transporter room. In Star Trek 2009, could Chekov made it there while Kirk and Sulu fell if he had to stop and take a turbolift?

For me, the Enterprise is a vehicle of the imagination. It takes my heroes where they need to go. So it being 500 feet, a 1000 feet or 2000 feet really doesn't matter to me.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 02:47 AM   #726
bullethead
Fleet Captain
 
bullethead's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post
That was funny considering both the transporter room and sickbay are on lower decks.
I'm not so sure about the transporter room. In Star Trek 2009, could Chekov made it there while Kirk and Sulu fell if he had to stop and take a turbolift?
Yes. Spock went from the shuttlebay to the bridge in a matter of seconds. The Abramsprise's turbolifts make modern people movers weep in envy.
__________________
A business man and engineer discuss how to launch a communications satellite in the 1960s:
Biz Dev Guy: Your communications satellite has to be the size, shape, and weight of a hydrogen bomb.
bullethead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 03:06 AM   #727
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
Has anyone else noticed that the floor plan diagram make it look like sickbay and the transporter room are at the same height with the bridge? They are both below the bridge in the saucer section just like in the original show and TNG. There has to be stairs that just aren't show in the diagram. It's also weird how when the neck and secondary hull got hit when Enterprise arrived at Vulcan that the sickbay exploded. I'm working on superimposing the diagram. This will take a while.
As I said, that's the set, it's not meant to represent the actual placement of the rooms on the ship. All the prior Treks did similar - the old movie Enterprise had the sickbay right around the corner from engineering, for example yet they obviously weren't meant to be next door to each other.

Oh, and the bridge window in your 366m diagram is far bigger thsn in the picture from the film I posted. So, it can't be 366m
Oh I know where the atrium window is!!!!!! It's under those windows behind the bridge. Although the floor plans are a bit vague since that would mean the rear corridor has a decline so that they can lead to the lower decks. I always wondered what was inside those windows that's in the same place as Refit 1701's conference room.
It's a 50-foot dome looking directly out into space. And there's an identical one 16+decks below. What you're describing makes no sense whatsoever. Fail!
I would have accepted the 725 meter length if they had accurately scaled the ship to reflect that
They did. The bridge window, the lobby, the number of saucer decks, the engineering section, the warp core, the shuttlebay, the 12m shuttles and the airlocks all point to a ship of 725 metres in length.

You must have no sense of scale if you think those will all fit inside the TOS Enterprise or similar. That ship's engineering hull is less than 20 meters across at it'a widest point! Do you know how wide that is?
and included blueprints but unfortunately it isn't accurately scaled and there are no blueprints so their empty claims are just that.
Why do you need blueprints? The people who made the CG model say its 725 meters. Why would they lie about it? What would they have to gain by making it one size but pretending its another? Especially when nothing would fit in the bizarro conspiracy theorist's 366m size?
As for the 289m length as gospel, I haven't been given reason to doubt 289 meters, if someone wants to come up with a hyper accurate length for the TOS Enterprise go for it but the chances of that are slim to none.
You must be new to this. The original Enterprise was doubled in size between the first and second pilot episodes. A second row of windows was added to the saucer rim and the bridge dome on top was made shorter to imply shorter deck heights.
All things considered, I think it was funny that Daniel tried to pass off the set floor plan as an actual schematic for the ship. That was funny considering both the transporter room and sickbay are on lower decks.
Bullshit. Try actually reading my posts, I never said that was anything other than a set plan.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 10:24 AM   #728
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It reads like one of James Dixon's, but with Okuda as God instead of Franz Jopseph. There is so much wrong with this it's not funny. And Bernd is an engineer? Why doesn't he understand basic perspective?
That second picture was provided by me, actually, back in the day when I wasn't sure the scaling was consistent. I have, obviously, seen the light since then.

Bernd is an nice guy, but he has preconcieved notions about what Trek should be, and he spends way too much time on minutiae, in my opinion.

Killerprise wrote: View Post
The dome on the saucer's top is actually a sensor as is the dome on the bottom of the saucer.
You don't know that. It was so in some blueprints of the original Enterprise but I'm not sure they were official. With the reboot, all bets are off.

Yeah this blue ring is directly under that dome.
No it's not. How can you possibly say it is ? Look at the picture again, and consider the perspective.

I would have accepted the 725 meter length if they had accurately scaled the ship to reflect that and included blueprints but unfortunately it isn't accurately scaled and there are no blueprints so their empty claims are just that.
Star Trek never really produced blueprints of their ships in an official manner, nor were they in the habit of mentioning the size of their ships on-screen; and yet fans always accepted the 289/305 length of the ship/refit as gospel, despite the fact that it didn't come from official sources. Now you have official sources and refuse to accept the length. This isn't about official sources. This is about you not wanting the Enterprise to be that much different from the original.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 12:29 PM   #729
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It reads like one of James Dixon's, but with Okuda as God instead of Franz Jopseph. There is so much wrong with this it's not funny. And Bernd is an engineer? Why doesn't he understand basic perspective?
That second picture was provided by me, actually, back in the day when I wasn't sure the scaling was consistent. I have, obviously, seen the light since then.

Bernd is an nice guy, but he has preconcieved notions about what Trek should be, and he spends way too much time on minutiae, in my opinion.
I saw your name there! Sorry if I was a little harsh.

Killerprise wrote: View Post
The dome on the saucer's top is actually a sensor as is the dome on the bottom of the saucer.
According to the classic movie Enterprise blueprints, yes. But on The Original Series it was a glass dome:

Ditto on The Next Generation's Enteprise-D, which had a small glass dome directly above the captain's chair.
Belz... wrote: View Post
Yeah this blue ring is directly under that dome.
No it's not. How can you possibly say it is ? Look at the picture again, and consider the perspective.
Here is a pic showing what and where that blue thing really is on the bridge set. The 360 panorama taken directly below it completely distorts it's size and shape, it's not the ceiling of the set at all, and it's obviously not under the dome.

Belz wrote:
Star Trek never really produced blueprints of their ships in an official manner, nor were they in the habit of mentioning the size of their ships on-screen; and yet fans always accepted the 289/305 length of the ship/refit as gospel, despite the fact that it didn't come from official sources. Now you have official sources and refuse to accept the length. This isn't about official sources. This is about you not wanting the Enterprise to be that much different from the original.
And willful ignorance, which is a pet peeve of mine (which I think this thread has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt!)

Anyone who thinks all the stuff from THIS BIG PIC would fit into a hull that is 30m across at it's widest point is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. There is absolutely overwhelming evidence that the Enterprise in the new movies is significantly bigger than it's prior incarnations.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 11:03 PM   #730
Killerprise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post
That was funny considering both the transporter room and sickbay are on lower decks.
I'm not so sure about the transporter room. In Star Trek 2009, could Chekov made it there while Kirk and Sulu fell if he had to stop and take a turbolift?

For me, the Enterprise is a vehicle of the imagination. It takes my heroes where they need to go. So it being 500 feet, a 1000 feet or 2000 feet really doesn't matter to me.

I'm very sure about it, if the sickbay and transporter room were on the same level as the bridge they too would be sticking out of the hull. We're talking about a Constitution class starship here, the bridge sits higher than everything else yet with a trick of the camera they made it seem like the Bridge Transporter Room and Sickbay are all on the same level which is physically impossible. This isn't the original Enterprise though, this is a mess of ship where locations don't add up or anything.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It reads like one of James Dixon's, but with Okuda as God instead of Franz Jopseph. There is so much wrong with this it's not funny. And Bernd is an engineer? Why doesn't he understand basic perspective?
That second picture was provided by me, actually, back in the day when I wasn't sure the scaling was consistent. I have, obviously, seen the light since then.

Bernd is an nice guy, but he has preconcieved notions about what Trek should be, and he spends way too much time on minutiae, in my opinion.
I saw your name there! Sorry if I was a little harsh.


According to the classic movie Enterprise blueprints, yes. But on The Original Series it was a glass dome:
[ IMG]http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/cage_dome.jpg[/ IMG]
Ditto on The Next Generation's Enteprise-D, which had a small glass dome directly above the captain's chair.
Belz... wrote: View Post


No it's not. How can you possibly say it is ? Look at the picture again, and consider the perspective.
Here is a pic showing what and where that blue thing really is on the bridge set. The 360 panorama taken directly below it completely distorts it's size and shape, it's not the ceiling of the set at all, and it's obviously not under the dome.
[ IMG]http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/bridge_bluething.jpg[/ IMG]
Belz wrote:
Star Trek never really produced blueprints of their ships in an official manner, nor were they in the habit of mentioning the size of their ships on-screen; and yet fans always accepted the 289/305 length of the ship/refit as gospel, despite the fact that it didn't come from official sources. Now you have official sources and refuse to accept the length. This isn't about official sources. This is about you not wanting the Enterprise to be that much different from the original.
And willful ignorance, which is a pet peeve of mine (which I think this thread has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt!)

Anyone who thinks all the stuff from THIS BIG PIC would fit into a hull that is 30m across at it's widest point is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. There is absolutely overwhelming evidence that the Enterprise in the new movies is significantly bigger than it's prior incarnations.

This Enterprise's appearance is based on the refit therefore the glowing dome is a sensor. If you want to ignore the fact that the bridge itself takes up a significant chunk of the model behind that big window then that's your choice.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It's a 50-foot dome looking directly out into space. And there's an identical one 16+decks below. What you're describing makes no sense whatsoever. Fail!
Can you read? I specifically said those windows are directly tied to that lobby shaft and as for the "old movie" Enterprise having sickbay and engineering right around the corner. That's total bullshit engineering is down in the secondary hull right where the warpcore meets the transfer conduit. The fact that you just said that has now put some doubt into whether you've actually seen any of the TOS movies. The 1st pilot Enterprise is exactly the same size as the production version, the only difference is they changed the bridge module and opaque bussard collectors to light up bussard collectors. Btw the upscaling was meant for the shuttlebay scene only, then the ship magically shrinks back to 366 meters. Btw I just screen grabbed this as reference, that's not the dish of a 725m ship. Granted it is about 50-100 feet away from him but still if the ship were that huge this dish would be at least three times the size.

[ IMG]http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a510/SubaruBRZ/NativevsDeflectordish_zps453aca89.jpg[/ IMG]

Belz... wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It reads like one of James Dixon's, but with Okuda as God instead of Franz Jopseph. There is so much wrong with this it's not funny. And Bernd is an engineer? Why doesn't he understand basic perspective?
That second picture was provided by me, actually, back in the day when I wasn't sure the scaling was consistent. I have, obviously, seen the light since then.

Bernd is an nice guy, but he has preconcieved notions about what Trek should be, and he spends way too much time on minutiae, in my opinion.

Bernd is a stickler for accuracy, he's German after all.
__________________
Real Star Trek fans question everything, fake Trek fans blindly accept everything.

Last edited by M'Sharak; July 24 2013 at 12:43 AM.
Killerprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 11:39 PM   #731
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
This Enterprise's appearance is based on the refit therefore the glowing dome is a sensor.
It's not 1979 anymore.
If you want to ignore the fact that the bridge itself takes up a significant chunk of the model behind that big window then that's your choice.

Oh look, it's a room at the front of the deck, with plenty of room behind for the domed lobby and corridors. Also getting an odd sense of deja vu.
Killerprise wrote: View Post
I'm very sure about it, if the sickbay and transporter room were on the same level as the bridge they too would be sticking out of the hull. We're talking about a Constitution class starship here, the bridge sits higher than everything else yet with a trick of the camera they made it seem like the Bridge Transporter Room and Sickbay are all on the same level which is physically impossible. This isn't the original Enterprise though, this is a mess of ship where locations don't add up or anything.
ALL the sets on ALL of Star Trek's ships are on the same level.

OMG physically impossible TOS is ruined!
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 11:50 PM   #732
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It's a 50-foot dome looking directly out into space. And there's an identical one 16+decks below. What you're describing makes no sense whatsoever. Fail!
Can you read? I specifically said those windows are directly tied to that lobby shaft
Explaining the 50-foot dome on top how?
and as for the "old movie" Enterprise having sickbay and engineering right around the corner. That's total bullshit engineering is down in the secondary hull right where the warpcore meets the transfer conduit.
Once AGAIN, you are confusing the real life sets with the pretend spaceship.
The fact that you just said that has now put some doubt into whether you've actually seen any of the TOS movies. The 1st pilot Enterprise is exactly the same size as the production version, the only difference is they changed the bridge module and opaque bussard collectors to light up bussard collectors.
And added a second row of windows to the saucer rim, and doubled the crew - all to make the ship seem bigger.
Btw the upscaling was meant for the shuttlebay scene only, then the ship magically shrinks back to 366 meters.
Please explain to me how the shuttlebay, engineering, the warp core, communications, and the bridge with lobby behind fit into a 366m Enterprise, with a 30m wide secondary hull. So far you've done nothing of he sort. Offered no explanations, nothing.
Btw I just screen grabbed this as reference, that's not the dish of a 725m ship. Granted it is about 50-100 feet away from him but still if the ship were that huge this dish would be at least three times the size.

A perspective lesson from you... Go back and look at that bridge window pic, and the video of the big dome over the lobby.

__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2013, 12:07 AM   #733
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post
That was funny considering both the transporter room and sickbay are on lower decks.
I'm not so sure about the transporter room. In Star Trek 2009, could Chekov made it there while Kirk and Sulu fell if he had to stop and take a turbolift?
Look at SFS ... in the span of what we're supposed to believe is 60 seconds, Kirk & co leave the bridge, take an elevator ride, run down a hallway, get to the transporter, beam out ... and then there is still time for klingons to beam aboard, go back up to the bridge, and look around, before the thing blows.

Makes the last 16 seconds till detonation in DOOMSDAY MACHINE (which is more like 2min) seem HIGH NOON-accurate with respect to screen time.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2013, 12:14 AM   #734
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It's a 50-foot dome looking directly out into space. And there's an identical one 16+decks below. What you're describing makes no sense whatsoever. Fail!
Can you read? I specifically said those windows are directly tied to that lobby shaft and as for the "old movie" Enterprise having sickbay and engineering right around the corner. That's total bullshit engineering is down in the secondary hull right where the warpcore meets the transfer conduit. The fact that you just said that has now put some doubt into whether you've actually seen any of the TOS movies. The 1st pilot Enterprise is exactly the same size as the production version, the only difference is they changed the bridge module and opaque bussard collectors to light up bussard collectors. Btw the upscaling was meant for the shuttlebay scene only, then the ship magically shrinks back to 366 meters. Btw I just screen grabbed this as reference, that's not the dish of a 725m ship. Granted it is about 50-100 feet away from him but still if the ship were that huge this dish would be at least three times the size.
Watch '09 again. When Kirk, McCoy, and Uhura run onto to the bridge to stop the ship. there's an extensive network of rooms beside and behind the bridge module.





The bridge is forward of the center of the saucer. You've gotta stop applying class Trek design thinking to reboot designs. The new bridge is more oval, wide and narrow, but still it doesn't take up that much real estate in the up saucer.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2013, 12:41 AM   #735
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Well, it's not six posts in a row, this time, but
Killerprise wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post
That was funny considering both the transporter room and sickbay are on lower decks.
I'm not so sure about the transporter room. In Star Trek 2009, could Chekov made it there while Kirk and Sulu fell if he had to stop and take a turbolift?

For me, the Enterprise is a vehicle of the imagination. It takes my heroes where they need to go. So it being 500 feet, a 1000 feet or 2000 feet really doesn't matter to me.

I'm very sure about it, if the sickbay and transporter room were on the same level as the bridge they too would be sticking out of the hull. We're talking about a Constitution class starship here, the bridge sits higher than everything else yet with a trick of the camera they made it seem like the Bridge Transporter Room and Sickbay are all on the same level which is physically impossible. This isn't the original Enterprise though, this is a mess of ship where locations don't add up or anything.
One...

Killerprise wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post

That second picture was provided by me, actually, back in the day when I wasn't sure the scaling was consistent. I have, obviously, seen the light since then.

Bernd is an nice guy, but he has preconcieved notions about what Trek should be, and he spends way too much time on minutiae, in my opinion.
I saw your name there! Sorry if I was a little harsh.


According to the classic movie Enterprise blueprints, yes. But on The Original Series it was a glass dome:
[ IMG]http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/cage_dome.jpg[/ IMG]
Ditto on The Next Generation's Enteprise-D, which had a small glass dome directly above the captain's chair.

Here is a pic showing what and where that blue thing really is on the bridge set. The 360 panorama taken directly below it completely distorts it's size and shape, it's not the ceiling of the set at all, and it's obviously not under the dome.
[ IMG]http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/bridge_bluething.jpg[/ IMG]
Belz wrote:
Star Trek never really produced blueprints of their ships in an official manner, nor were they in the habit of mentioning the size of their ships on-screen; and yet fans always accepted the 289/305 length of the ship/refit as gospel, despite the fact that it didn't come from official sources. Now you have official sources and refuse to accept the length. This isn't about official sources. This is about you not wanting the Enterprise to be that much different from the original.
And willful ignorance, which is a pet peeve of mine (which I think this thread has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt!)

Anyone who thinks all the stuff from THIS BIG PIC would fit into a hull that is 30m across at it's widest point is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. There is absolutely overwhelming evidence that the Enterprise in the new movies is significantly bigger than it's prior incarnations.

This Enterprise's appearance is based on the refit therefore the glowing dome is a sensor. If you want to ignore the fact that the bridge itself takes up a significant chunk of the model behind that big window then that's your choice.
Two...

Killerprise wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It's a 50-foot dome looking directly out into space. And there's an identical one 16+decks below. What you're describing makes no sense whatsoever. Fail!
Can you read? I specifically said those windows are directly tied to that lobby shaft and as for the "old movie" Enterprise having sickbay and engineering right around the corner. That's total bullshit engineering is down in the secondary hull right where the warpcore meets the transfer conduit. The fact that you just said that has now put some doubt into whether you've actually seen any of the TOS movies. The 1st pilot Enterprise is exactly the same size as the production version, the only difference is they changed the bridge module and opaque bussard collectors to light up bussard collectors. Btw the upscaling was meant for the shuttlebay scene only, then the ship magically shrinks back to 366 meters. Btw I just screen grabbed this as reference, that's not the dish of a 725m ship. Granted it is about 50-100 feet away from him but still if the ship were that huge this dish would be at least three times the size.

[ IMG]http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a510/SubaruBRZ/NativevsDeflectordish_zps453aca89.jpg[/ IMG]
Three...

Killerprise wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It reads like one of James Dixon's, but with Okuda as God instead of Franz Jopseph. There is so much wrong with this it's not funny. And Bernd is an engineer? Why doesn't he understand basic perspective?
That second picture was provided by me, actually, back in the day when I wasn't sure the scaling was consistent. I have, obviously, seen the light since then.

Bernd is an nice guy, but he has preconcieved notions about what Trek should be, and he spends way too much time on minutiae, in my opinion.

Bernd is a stickler for accuracy, he's German after all.
Four.

Still needs improvement. And use of Multi-Quote.

Again I will fix these for you, but this'll be the last time.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
argument, size, starship

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.