How big was the Enterprise?

[CorporalCaptain]

That's not how canonicity is determined.

I didn't say it was. To repeat myself, the question of what was discernable under original broadcast conditions is an independent question, one that was already under discussion.

 

[Tallguy]

Clearly the entire internal arrangement of the 1701-D is not to be taken seriously no matter how clearly it was displayed on screen. Those drawings had ducks and race cars.

 

[UssGlenn]

Remember, even 442m doesn't fit the SNW Enterprise engineering section or shuttlebay. There will be no magical, fixes everything number.

I know the cgi model for the engineering section is "larger" than it should be, but isn't that the sort of optical distortion you could create with camera lenses? Also, why don't we think the shuttlebay fits? haven't we only seen it through the doors from the outside?

 

[David cgc]

I know the cgi model for the engineering section is "larger" than it should be, but isn't that the sort of optical distortion you could create with camera lenses?

Not really. If we only ever saw the Engineering set extension from one angle, you could argue that the larger size is an optical illusion (even though that would have knock-on effects, like things that seem to be symmetrical not being so, or parts that looked centered in the ship actually being offset), but since the camera moves around, it "locks in" the actual size of the set.

It's sort of the inverse of how a lot of people have decided the TOS Engineering "pipe cathedral" actually is a tetrahedron tapering down past the grate in "reality," matching the way the set was actually built, since TOS's directors didn't restrict themselves to angles where the forced perspective worked and made it look like a straight triangular tunnel as intended.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I know the cgi model for the engineering section is "larger" than it should be, but isn't that the sort of optical distortion you could create with camera lenses? Also, why don't we think the shuttlebay fits? haven't we only seen it through the doors from the outside?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Engineering is complicated greatly by the sweeping shot from SNW 01.01, descending through a giant shaft and massive open area. Look up in the Roddenberry Archive to see some of it.

 

[Maurice]

I worked with video in the SD era and there's no way anyone was clearly reading that "Day of the Dove" text on a CRT TV. At best, you can infer some things if you stare at it, but you can't actually parse it.

I don't honestly care how big the ship is. If Jefferies said it was 947 feet, fine. Sets for film and TV routinely wouldn't actually fit in the buildings depicted. It's all artifice.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think that, for some people, what's clearly legible matters with respect to what's in continuity, as in: if you can't clearly read it, then it it's free to say whatever's necessary for everything to fit together consistently, regardless of what's written on the source graphic used to film the episode? Or, nothing specific is actually established, if you can't actually read it? Something like that?

Yeah, maybe. I seriously appreciate people trying to bring authenticity to their fan works. But what we're running into is basically the limit between fiction and reality. That limit has to exist, because the subject is fictional.

 

[Tallguy]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So how big are those shuttles meant to be? Has SNW ever said? Obvs. if they're in the ballpark of the TOS shuttle they're less than the height of a minivan, right? And they are way bigger than that.

Even with the TOS sized shuttles (which they're really really not) that shuttle bay is even roomier than the TOS bay. You then, what? Double that size?

I don't think 450m is getting the job done.

 

[David cgc]

So how big are those shuttles meant to be? Has SNW ever said?

We see inside them pretty often, and the interior is significantly bigger than the already-oversized TOS shuttle interior set, and the exterior seems to match that scale. There are orthos of the CG model, and I feel like I've seen a CAD drawing of the interior set that would let us figure it out, but it's not turning up. Either way, 7 meters long is definitely too little. Could be twice that (and a 14 or 20 m shuttle would still fit comfortably in the bay).

(Despite MA's decision to list them separately, I'm sure the SNW shuttles are supposed to be the Class-F shuttles from TOS).

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm sure the SNW shuttles are supposed to be the Class-F shuttles from TOS

I agree. There are a lot of cues to indicate that.

 

[fireproof78]

the ONLY show that had consistant and real ship sizes was Enterprise. You would think since then 25 years ago, that the digital age would show nice and consistant ship sizes.. Nope. Matter of fact its even worse now than pre 2000.
Doug Drexler cared.. the rest of the people? not so much.

Not should they care.

"James R. Kirk" was plainly visible. It's explicit in dialogue that Space Seed takes place in the 22nd century. And The Squire of Gothos is the 28th century.

There are dozens of things that fans can choose to ignore when they don't mesh with what later continuity established.

I'm not saying you have to accept that. The design intent for the ship at the time is clear and no one should pretend otherwise. As I said above, you've got options for how you want to handle it within the continuity of the show if you want to.

I like your content and wish to subscribe to your blog.

I worked with video in the SD era and there's no way anyone was clearly reading that "Day of the Dove" text on a CRT TV. At best, you can infer some things if you stare at it, but you can't actually parse it.

I don't honestly care how big the ship is. If Jefferies said it was 947 feet, fine. Set for film and TV routinely wouldn't actually fit in the buildings depicted. It's all artifice.

Exactly. Yes, it's a testament to how the design fired the imagination for many of us but the length of the ship is not important because it's not important to the story. If it was it would have been stated in dialog.

 

[Dukhat]

I don't honestly care how big the ship is. If Jefferies said it was 947 feet, fine. Set for film and TV routinely wouldn't actually fit in the buildings depicted. It's all artifice.

Jerry Seinfeld's apartment and the buildings in M*A*S*H would agree with that assessment.

 

[blssdwlf]

FWIW, I was curious whether you could read those numbers or even the text on a CRT as my memory of watching TOS back then was that I could not.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

To review, you made the claim that no one could have discerned anything out of "The Enterprise Incident" diagram as aired (while also arguing that we should notice the minor differences in the drawing versus the eleven foot model and consider them reason to disregard the drawing, with no apparent thought given to the self-contradiction inherent in that juxtaposition). Therefore, you seem to argue, the diagram isn't canon or doesn't count or something.

I pointed out that you might not be wrong about the visibility insofar as the words (i.e. "SCALE IN FEET"), but that (a) the numbers on the scale chart are comprehensible and (b) your images are not proof of your claim because they are uniquely unclear with missing imagery elements on the areas of interest, compared to non-text areas in the same photo.

I did not suggest that (b) was intentional on your part. After all, taking a picture with missing lines in an attempt to prove that something cannot be read would be very dishonest, and I am sure that was not your intent. I'm sure you also didn't mean to further challenge someone who pointed out this problem to go get their own CRT rather than actually prove the claim with complete images. That could be viewed as even less scrupulous insofar as it could represent an attempt to shift the burden of proof while refusing to acknowledge that the claim is unproven.

Rather than continue down that hole, I'd be tempted to stipulate that the chances of someone discerning the words on the diagram in the period 1968-1985 on NTSC televisions without additional information were very low, in the absolute best case, or completely zero, at worst. That said, someone familiar with engineering sketches and used to scale diagrams of the type might've made a convincing argument for "XXXXX XX XXXX" next to an obvious scale marker being "SCALE IN FEET" -- were it not for them having the diagram in hand from the bookstore in 1968 short-circuiting any such need -- so your mileage may vary.

(The natural follow-up either way is "what of it?" It doesn't change the fact that it was in the episode, readable in a standard definition releases, along with being known to everyone at the time. I am all for a high burden of proof in regards to arguments from canon details, but the reality of 1968–1985 was that you've get Greg Jein types optically blowing up film cels for blurry mimeographed fanzines for impressed readers, not debating whether they could really see it when they watched.

Even if it wasn't "canon-to-the-viewer" until VHS or Laserdisc releases or 1999 DVD releases, so what? That doesn't make it non-canon.)

Similarly, no one is suggesting regarding (a) that the digits are perfectly clear and readable on your small CRT image. What is true, however, is that anyone who has been trying to read tiny text from screens ever would know that one uses one's brain in such scenarios. If I see a picture of a Constitution Class ship and a blurry XXX Xxxxxxxxxx beneath and NCC-1701 on the hull, I don't have to be able to mindlessly read the text to be able to reasonably assert that it says USS Enterprise. As before, I am equally certain that intentional obfuscutory obtuseness mixed with a demand for absolute 100% crystal clarity of evidence from your opponent wouldn't be your standard of behavior.

So again, just that we're clear, the text is not legible on a CRT. The only way you would know what was there is with a secondary source like TMOST back in the day.

Now, today, if you were to use TMOST or say a HD screen capture of said scene you'd be able to make out most of the text but then the Enterprise isn't the depicted Enterprise because it is an earlier inaccurate version according to you quoting Shaw. I just saw the TMOST version as an earlier version of the Enterprise and not the same as the one filmed, YMMV. And so my response is that if you didn't have to model the TMOST version then it would be close enough for getting a length of the Enterprise .

What exactly are you trying to argue?

 

[UssGlenn]

Jerry Seinfeld's apartment and the buildings in M*A*S*H would agree with that assessment.

and the Brady Bunch House, and pretty much most others. Sets that fit are the exception not the rule.

 

[Maurice]

Jerry Seinfeld's apartment and the buildings in M*A*S*H would agree with that assessment.

and the Brady Bunch House, and pretty much most others. Sets that fit are the exception not the rule.

Yep.

The Bunker home in All In the Family, the Munster and Addams homes, the Millennium Falcon, the Seaview, the Jupiter 2, the Full House house, and on and on and on.

 

[knightgrace]

Then there is another problem.

The slide showing the scale, and reproduced in TMOST, clearly shows that a compartment exists in the base of the warp nacelles. What is it supposed to be?

If one thing, it could be the representation of the Engineering set. In which case we have seen the interior of the warp nacelles...

However, FJ, tells us that the radiation/environment in the nacelles is too hostile to live.

 

[DSG2k]

For a gauge of what's actually legible, absent good behind-the-scenes depictions of the graphics employed, even with multiple digital versions, we're still to this day debating what's in the Star Ship Status chart in "Court Martial." The numbers there have much greater resolution than those in the monitor display in "The Enterprise Incident"!

The "Court Martial" chart is a thing for multiple reasons.

1. The list was never published in an official source, so it was open season for discussion.

2. It's larger and ought to be readable but, to be blunt, the font used was a heaping bag of fail for the purpose of distinguishing digits, so it is open season for discussion.

3. It became more important when Jein's absurd match-up of the digits to Constitutions became 'official', then canon, but even the official list changed along the way. Ergo, more discussion.

By contrast, the diagram from "The Enterprise Incident" was published virtually alongside the episode, largely quashing any need for discussion or a Jein-esque film frame optical blow-up. It'd have taken about two seconds for just about anyone to have crushed a "SCALE IN NOT-QUITE-HALF-METERS" truther, had there been one then.

 

[DSG2k]

FWIW, I was curious whether you could read those numbers or even the text on a CRT as my memory of watching TOS back then was that I could not.

I'm sorry you couldn't figure out even the easier digits, though impressed by your recollection of whether you could.

So again, just that we're clear, the text is not legible on a CRT.

That's ... not what was said.

The only way you would know what was there is with a secondary source like TMOST back in the day.

With absolute definitiveness? Maybe. It rather depends on how obtuse the audience wanted to pretend to be.

But, the scale bar was there to invite reasonable folk to make educated guesses, the numbers were comprehensible (even in your images with half the lines missing over only the relevant portions), and a bit of "typical" text like "SCALE IN FEET" that would readily be associated with such a scale bar could be discerned as individual letters.

but then the Enterprise isn't the depicted Enterprise because it is an earlier inaccurate version according to you quoting Shaw.

That's a very impressive way to put things.

Again, "just that we're clear", it is your claim that we are supposed to disregard the size comparison diagram shown on screen to the crew in a briefing about the ships they're facing, your argument being that the drawing of the Enterprise is not 100% accurate to the exterior view (of the eleven foot model) and thus it is "an earlier version of the Enterprise and not the same as the one filmed". Therefore, you argue, the Enterprise they were on at the time could be a vastly different size than the one pictured with scale marked on a size comparison diagram in a tactical briefing regarding the ships they're facing.

Respectfully, I am sure that you are still patting yourself on the back for having come up with this perceived escape route, given how you tend to repeat it unchanged despite any counterpoint without a shred of embarrassment evident. To me, it seems they should've just used a giant space banana for scale rather than a virtually identical, yet incredibly smaller, version of their own ship.

In any case, Shaw pointed out the inherent flaw in demanding perfect model accuracy of a drawing months ago, which I quoted after you repeated your argument unchanged.

So, I am impressed at how you now describe the claim as "the Enterprise isn't depicted Enterprise because it is an earlier inaccurate version according to you quoting Shaw."

That's very modest of you, but let me assure you that I don't want any undeserved credit for your argument, and I'm quite certain that Shaw would also not be interested in taking any credit, either. It's all you, buddy. Own it.

 

[valkyrie013]

I honestly would take the VFX getting "Mostly" right.

 

[Forbin]

What I can't grasp is WHY people think it needs to be bigger. A 947 foot ship isn't big enough for a crew of 425? Baloney. The SNW ship has to be 500 feet longer than that to fit a crew of only 203??? Huh? Of course, it has to bigger if everyone from Lt. on up has a luxury suite with windows rather than a reasonable single room with a divider and a lav, which... WHY does everyone have a suite now??