It sorta would. At least Ten Forward would actually fit inside the saucer rim.
Discovery Size Argument™ thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Show me how it doesn't fit. People have made 3d models of both the enterprise and Voyager interiors that work fine.
None of this would justify enlarging the ships. The designer of the Enterprise d made a detailed deck plan. He put a lot of work into it, and others have done the same for Voyager.
None of this would justify enlarging the ships. The designer of the Enterprise d made a detailed deck plan. He put a lot of work into it, and others have done the same for Voyager.
The Stage 9 project is a good example of this, they're using those deck plans (with a mix of what was seen on screen)
Here's the original concept for the saucer rim of the Enterprise-D, made bu the ship's designer Andrew Probert
And here's how Mike Okuda reimagined it prior to season two:
The deck plans cheat
. For starters, they usually don't include the elaborate ceilings which the sets do (Ten Forward being a big example). In fact, going back to the very first set of blueprints, Franz Joseph's USS Constitution-Class Booklet of General Plans, he had to shave a couple of feet from the set heights (his decks were 8', the sets 9 or 10) in order to fit 23 decks into the classic Enterprise. Doug Drexler dealt with this issue by scaling up the classic Enterprise by about a third when he did his cutaway (which appeared in modified form in "In a Mirror, Darkly")
Yep. What was originally designed as one deck became two massive decks. They tried to ameliorate this when they made the new filming model (which has somewhat thicker saucer rim), but it really doesn't fully solve the issue.Here's the original concept for the saucer rim of the Enterprise-D, made bu the ship's designer Andrew Probert
And here's how Mike Okuda reimagined it prior to season two:
Also, In the official size the Jefferies tubes cannot run between the decks, the deck height is just too small to allow that.
Indeed. So maybe it would be the time to accept this, and upscale the official sizes by about the third to reflect this.The deck plans cheat
Again. EVERY TIME the Enterprise (no matter which one) was on screen with another starfleet vessel, it was the biggest one around. And we saw a whole lot of other starships on Trek!
(Notable exception being the Excelsior as the "new" big class, which promptly resulted in a Excelsior-Enterprise)
It's YOU arguing against 800+ hours of screentime. If you really want to make that argument, the Connie being one of the smaller ships, against every on-screen appereance and the series bible, it's YOU who have to provide evidence for your ludicrous theory! So far, you have spectacularly failed at that.
Heh...
I suppose you meant the biggest baddest FEDERATION ship in there? That's also factually untrue; EVERY Federation starship we saw was exactly the same size and same level of "badness" because there was only ever one type of starship they could even afford to show.
There are NO canon references that describe the Constitution class -- or the Enterprise for that matter -- as the largest, or near the largest, or even notably large for the 23rd century. NONE WHATSOEVER. Nor are there any references to its firepower or technology relative to any other Starfleet vessel.
Unless you're trying to say that the Constitution class was the ONLY starship the Federation had at the time, in which case, yes, it is the "largest" ship just because they never built anything smaller.
You're willfully obtuse here. We saw other starships on TOS (and especially the TOS movies). Only a handfull of them were battle-capable starships - most of them were smaller sized transportation or exploration vessels. Just because you don't count them, doesn't mean they don't exist. The connie was always the biggest front-of-the-line ship, directly engaging with a klingon fleet, being the one ship utilized to fight against a Romulan starship, etc. etc.
There weren't just that many warships around during TOS. But the Connie was always the biggest one. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Try argue that one.
We never saw any other Starfleet ship classes in the show.
Try including the TOS movies.
But even by going on the show alone: There were other starfleet ships in the show. We just never saw studio models of them on screen. But they certainly existed. And all of them were drastically smaller than the Enterprise. The exception being the other "super big" ships where they suspiciously used the same studio model...
How could we know if they were smaller then the Enterprise if we never saw them?
Dialogue?
Where have they said the ships were smaller?
(Using that because it's a well sorted list)
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/starfleet_ships1.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/starfleet_ships2.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/other_ships.htm
There are a shit-ton of human starships on Star Trek that have appeared, both on-screen and only mentioned in dialogue.
Every single time - EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. - we have a confirmed size, either visually (in comparison to the Enterprise) or in dialogue, EVERY starship was smaller than it's era' Enterprise. (Except probably for some simple cargo haulers)
Go sort through them for yourself. You'll find plenty for the TOS era. Don't forget the many ships without pictures (which only ever appeared in dialogue) on the bottom of each page...
Have fun.
I'm not seeing any TOS Fed ships in those lists outside of the Freighter and the Connie.
Oh and the Daedalus.
There is no evidence in TOS that Starfleet couldn't have had ships bigger then the Connie.
Go look more carefully.
The only thing the term "heavy cruiser" implies is that, at some point, there was at least 1 other kind of cruiser in some comparable fleet.
Ship types change over time. Frigates used to be the flagship of destroyer flotillas. Now they're smaller than destroyers and used mostly for sub hunting. Cruisers used to come in several varieties (light, heavy, battle, armored, missile) over time, with the only common trait is that they were capable of acting independently (away from a fleet). Now a cruiser is a larger destroyer that is particularly good at coordinating anti-air or anti-missile defense and is always part of a task force. The type may not even exist in 10 years. There's only 3 true cruiser classes in the whole world and all of them are getting old.
The problem stems from the fact that Roddenberry et al were Army Air during the war and never knew much about the Navy and its arcane nomenclature.
Nor is there any evidence in the movies that Excelsior was the largest ship of it's time. Impressive? Yes. Fast? Definitely. Unusually large? Sure. Largest? Zero evidence.
If the Crossfield is said to be Excelsior-sized in volume (more or less, which seems to be the case here), I see no reason to not accept that at face value. If everyone wants to upscale everything to better fit interiors, I'm all for that too.
Every 3D model I've ever scene has had tremendous issues fitting interiors to exteriors, especially when they try to reconcile the simple question of "where do they fit all the Jeffries tubes, cabling, piping and other infrastructure?"
Like, that's half the challenge of building those things.
Last edited:
I did.
Most of the list is post TOS
Nope. It was exactly the same size as every other Starfleet vessel it ever encountered. It was neither bigger nor smaller than any other Starfleet ship.
The first time we see Enterprise with a non-Constitution class, it was the Reliant, which is only a few percent smaller but slightly better armed; in the very next film we have Excelsior, which is significantly larger, and also Grissom, which as originally scaled also would be much larger.
Wait... are you being sarcastic? I can never tell.
Well, no, we saw the Aurora, we saw Mudd's ship, and we saw the Woden. None of these were suggested to be Starfleet vessels, past or present, let alone "starships" of any description.
I AM arguing that. The ONLY Starfleet vessel we ever saw in TOS was, in fact, the Constitution class. It wasn't the "biggest" one we ever saw, it was the ONLY one we ever saw. Nothing in dialog gives any indication that smaller or larger ships exist in Starfleet; I could just as easily argue, with the exact same evidence, that Enterprise is the SMALLEST starship in the entire fleet. There's no suggestion of SIZE one way or the other.
Three prolems:
1) None of the ships in any of those lists appear in TOS. Only the Antares class is mentioned (though not seen) in TOS, and its size is never given.
2) Of that list, THE VAST MAJORITY of those starships are much larger than the TOS Constitution. In fact, in the entire canon of Star Trek history, the only smaller starships we've ever seen are the (downscaled) Oberth class, the Defiant, and the Nova class, and possibly USS Centaur depending on how it's actually scaled. So from 800+ hours of television, the TOS Constitution is actually one of the SMALLEST starships we've ever seen (The TMP version is larger, but not by much).
3):
Dialog does not support this claim, and considering the Excelsior entered service a good ten years before the Enterprise-B was even built, it is FACTUALLY incorrect anyway.
Name one, and then list its size.
Because Discovery is a science vessel, and most of its internal space is laboratories and parts storage. It's probably a much less efficient design overall, with more of its internal space devoted to machinery.
As others have pointed out, the Constitution's actual size was never mentioned in dialog and therefore we don't really HAVE a canon size for it. They could retcon a size of 600 meters and it wouldn't change anything about TOS, considering its visual scales are all over the place to begin with (24/30 foot shuttlecraft?)
Similar threads
