Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by King Daniel Beyond, May 17, 2013.
Hm. So maybe the second letter refers to type and the first letter refers to general class. Vehicle, Heavy (Cruiser) 5?
Meh. Now I'm just reaching.
My guess is that it's the frequency designation of the channel.
I think you may be onto something! Rather than being obvious abrieviations, the letters may indeed stand for individual designations (as you've suggested), not unlike a vehicle registration.
With the powers of our communal Trek BBS intellects, this code will be cracked!
It's actually the same set and stage. Once filming was done on Enterprise - they redressed the entire set for Vengeance. it's on the DVD extras.
That post is from May, though - made on the day after the movie opened in the US. That the set was a redress was guessed, but at that time not known for certain.
I had all but forgotten the Makin class.
New footage from ILM on YouTube!
New details on San Francisco and the 1701 hangar bay!
Fantastic thank you! I've been wanting a good look at that shuttlebay for months. And future-San Francisco is gorgeous.
You're welcome! Looking forward to your analysis of both!
First, for those who still think the new Enterprise is the same size as the old one:
(and that 26ft for the TOS shuttle is based on the interior, not the undersized exterior prop)
Now, some bad news for those who, like me, want the new Enterprise to be consistently scaled at 725m...
It seems I was right when I originally guessed that they built the shuttlebay model using the early 1200m scale. Therefore the shuttlebay and primary hull details (bridge window, exposed decks after the Vengeance attack etc) are inconsistent.
And here's a wireframe of the shuttlebay. It may be too big, but it's still gorgeous.
Six stories tall? Roughly?
I'd say that's about right.
And that looks to be for just the "shuttle racks" from the floor of the bay to the apex of the racks. One more deck on top of that at the aft end of the bay?
Tell me people don't still think that, do they?
Some still hold to that need to equate the two versions, yes.
Meantime, the more I look at this version of the hangar bay, the more I think of the word "cathedral".
There would definitely be room for another deck at the back, owing to the tapering hull.
I'm afraid so, although to do so one has to mentally censor the bridge window and corridor outside, the 16-deck corridor plaza, the engine room, the warp core engine room (it's too wide and too tall) and shuttlebay, saucer rim decks and the weapons bay. In short, everything but the general exterior shape.
It's amazing they can suspend disbelief that much, but not that this Starfleet builds bigger.
Estimating 70 metres from the inner "lip" of the hangar clamshell doors to the nearest set of pillars/trusses and buttresses?
In the PS3 game you can walk around nearly the entire (to scale) hanger bay. Waypoints to other parts of the ship give accurate distances from it to say the bridge, transporter rooms etc (generally 500+ meters).
Then again, there *is* a 300m version of the Constitution class shown on the 'power wall' with a different designation to the Enterprise.
There are two variants, or two classes, keeping the old and new sizes. Apparently that isn't enough for some people.
I'll be back with more shuttlebay stuff in a bit, but for now...
Here's a much more detailed look at the city of San Francisco in 2259, and the Vengeance crash, from ILM. Nice shots of Starfleet headquarters and the automated waste processing facility.
Separate names with a comma.