Unknown.
I mean, you can. That's like arguing against the intent of what Zephram Cochrane was famous for in Metamorphosis by pointing out what they did in First Contact or Enterprise.
The next Star Trek (a fool's hope, I know) might say that the Enterprise was 3000' long and DID have 78 decks. And there are many who will say "Who am I to argue with the show runners?"
It does baffle me the early series things that are (reasonably) abandoned*. But we're holding on to the Cage compliment of 200 to the point where we're throwing out the size of the ship that was clearly very firm in the minds of showrunners for DECADES, but we're going to make sure that that is the size of Pike's crew, by gum!
* Bother me not with your James R. Kirk. It's not like R was used until it wasn't. Or that it was ever anything other than T after that. Vulcanian was FAR stickier as a term but that's never mentioned.
Boy, is that the truth! You just have to pick "your" part of the franchise and go with that.
Perhaps because going with what was stated on screen is valuable to some over others. Show runners are great but if it doesn't end up on screen then I don't give it as much weight. Firm in their minds does not mean firm reference on screen.
But, TOS is always a separate thing from any thing else so size really doesn't matter either.
I recall Gene Roddenberry once supposedly saying he thought some of the films were apocryphal after TMP (fuelled largely I suspect by him being pushed out of having any real input with the franchise). But for a long time I’ve basically felt the same way about most of what followed TOS and TMP.
The drift got progressively larger with each successive film and series. The current era, beginning in 2009, has gotten absurd beyond the pale. To that end nothing in the current era has any legit bearing on redefining what TOS established.
The drift got progressively larger with each successive film and series. The current era, beginning in 2009, has gotten absurd beyond the pale. To that end nothing in the current era has any legit bearing on redefining what TOS established.
No Trek defines another Trek. Each stands apart as its own artistic interpretation of that world. TOS and TAS all had absurdities, as dud TMP, TWOK and going forward.
TMP is a massive tone shift from TOS. It lacks the warmth of the show in favor of fascination with technology. It lacks the touch that TOS had. TWOK shifts again. And TNG again.
Each iteration focused on specific elements shown in TOS to one degree or a other but TOS embodies it the best.
Dialogue always trumps background graphics, especially ones that aren't specifically planned to be read by the audience. "203 lives">Jettison pod label>James R. Kirk>Scale in feet>Rubber Duck in MSD
Turbolift rollercoaster? Nah, Turbolift Highway!!
Maybe to you it doesn't, but that doesn't change the fact that the people who own and produce the franchise view it all as one continuous tapestry. Whether we agree with every creative decision or not, that's the lens they're working through.
Personally, I like when newer shows fill in some of the background details from older ones. To me, it enriches those stories rather than redefines them. Learning more about a period, an event, or a character doesn't take anything away from what was established in TOS. If anything, it gives me a deeper appreciation for it.
Sure. Absolutely. Getting to see the first Warp Flight? Awesome. Oh, wait. First EARTH warp flight. What are they naming planets after this guy for? And whatever it was, it wasn't for discovering the space warp FOR EARTH. Weird that that's what Spock remembers him for.
As for the topic: I often wonder if there were no Star Destroyers if we would be having this discussion. (If I have had this blazing insight before, then I'm sorry.) I mean, in the real world if you say "aircraft carrier" people still say "That's HUGE!"
Last edited:
People obsessed over size so the question would still occur, rather than just appreciating the ship itself.
Kirk dialog from The Galileo Seven: "And out there somewhere, a twenty four foot shuttlecraft, off course, out of control." Based on this, the Shuttlecraft is 24 feet, and if we scale that dimension with the Datin Hangar miniature with its 22" shuttlecraft, then the overall 122" Hangar is ~133 feet in length, and a fit into the 11 foot Enterprise Model puts the ship length at ~1377 feet or ~419 meters. Even bigger if you try to put the whole hangar behind the engine struts but then it doesn't match up to the hangar doors' shape.
A more actuate comparison between ships is the saucer diameter. In the above case, the Enterprise saucer diameter is ~606 feet. The SNW Enterprise's saucer is 660 feet in diameter for comparison. YMMV
Last edited:
First scene with the Excelsior is that it's the "great experiment" and ready for trials. Best head canon would indicate it's replacing the Dreadnought at least in the battleship role and a test platform for the new transwarp.
You assume Kirk was referring to human feet.Kirk dialog from The Galileo Seven: "And out there somewhere, a twenty four foot shuttlecraft, off course, out of control." Based on this, the Shuttlecraft is 24 feet, and if we scale that dimension with the Datin Hangar miniature with its 22" shuttlecraft, then the overall 122" Hangar is ~133 feet in length, and a fit into the 11 foot Enterprise Model puts the ship length at ~1377 feet or ~419 meters. Even bigger if you try to put the whole hangar behind the engine struts but then it doesn't match up to the hangar doors' shape.
A more actuate comparison between ships is the saucer diameter. In the above case, the Enterprise saucer diameter is ~606 feet. The SNW Enterprise's saucer is 660 feet in diameter for comparison. YMMV
I’ve always reasoned it out that Disco’s nacelles were custom-built to work with the Spore Drive.
I know this video I'm posting is about the 'D', but it does show how enormous it was.
The problem with both the Connie and the D is that we have no real life perspective with which to measure the size of the ship.
They look big because we're told they're big.
We the D, we never saw how big it was, because, thanks to forced perspective, all the ships that appeared in the same shot, looked just as big, when they should have been dwarfed.
The problem with both the Connie and the D is that we have no real life perspective with which to measure the size of the ship.
They look big because we're told they're big.
We the D, we never saw how big it was, because, thanks to forced perspective, all the ships that appeared in the same shot, looked just as big, when they should have been dwarfed.
It's weird that twenty years after WWII, people would jump to battleship as the class of ship to think of that's larger than a cruiser, when carriers (which were capital ships that were way larger than cruisers) were so important to WWII.
One thing that Starfleet never seemed to have much of was anything worth depicting in the carrier department. Sure, everything can go to warp it seems, but range and loads could make a carrier mothership aka mobile base seem quite plausible, even in the skiffy setting.
eta - It's somewhat ironic even, because both Enterprise and Yorktown (the proposed ship name in the original pitch Star Trek is…) were American carriers in WWII. Perhaps it was recognized that depicting a carrier in a skiffy setting would be even more expensive and involved than depicting a cruiser, even one with a hangar and a few shuttlecraft. It could also demand that attention be paid to more specifics, which would detract from keeping episodes interesting and accessible.
One thing that Starfleet never seemed to have much of was anything worth depicting in the carrier department. Sure, everything can go to warp it seems, but range and loads could make a carrier mothership aka mobile base seem quite plausible, even in the skiffy setting.
eta - It's somewhat ironic even, because both Enterprise and Yorktown (the proposed ship name in the original pitch Star Trek is…) were American carriers in WWII. Perhaps it was recognized that depicting a carrier in a skiffy setting would be even more expensive and involved than depicting a cruiser, even one with a hangar and a few shuttlecraft. It could also demand that attention be paid to more specifics, which would detract from keeping episodes interesting and accessible.
Last edited:
As others have suggested, it seems that a freighter might be bigger in size than a ship for cruising, but the crew and the spaces not used for cargo would likely be a lot smaller than those on the Enterprise.
I think the Kelvin may be something similar, although not really like an aircraft carrier, it has a saucer larger than the TOS ship would be (if the TOS ship is 289 meters), and it seems to have most of its secondary hull full of space for shuttles.
I figured the whole ship had been rebuilt around the spore drive and a “normal” Crossfield would look like the leaked version from the first visual effects team, that was closer to the announcement trailer design. But then when we saw one in the background in SNW season 3 it looked like the normal season 1/2 Discovery model with no changes. On the other hand, STO made up some song and dance for why the mirror Discovery looked like the normal one even without a spore drive, maybe all the Crossfields were upgraded to spore drive specs, even though the system itself was ultimately banned.
