Size comparison Constitution and Intrepid?

[darkwing_duck1]

Okay,that whole 'volumetrics' argument exists for no other reason than to 'prove how much better/bigger/badder Star Trek is better than Star Wars. There's a bunch of stupid on that site (taking canonista to the extremes here), and I would never cite it as authoritative on anything. In fact, I would only cite that site as proof of unhealthy obsession of minutae and a desperate cry for attention to someone who got beaten up as a kid by wanna-be Jedis in bathrobes carrying wooden sticks and going 'woosh' a lot.

You see, by that site's logic, Harry Mudd is really a polymorphed beast of burden, women don't serve in Star Fleet at all (and at least not before Pike), and Scotty's unusual drink is really named 'Green', and the Enterprise warp nacelles can change shape because different models were used. (Actually, this last one he really does say on the site, or at least used to. Enjoy your reading!)

If you don't believe me about how he approaches these subjects, please refer to his comments on shadows and the time of day in his arguments about how great Trek is. Do you know why he's so vested in the million ton Enterprise? Because it then weighs more than compartive Star Wars ships. That's it. That's his whole reason. His whole reason for being is making shit up about Star Trek and then using that as 'proof' that the Federation can kick the Empire's sorry ass.

*sighs*

And since the asshat uses his site to personally attack me on a few occaisions, as well as people who actually, ya know, worked for Star Trek, I don't feel too bad in telling him to go to hell and dismiss his rubbish accordingly. So, please don't cite him. Just... don't.

So, who are you at SDNet?

Your accusation of "exists for no other reason than to 'prove how much better/bigger/badder Star Trek is better than Star Wars" is laughable in the face of Saxon and his megaton (in some places gigaton) starfighter scale weapons that were created SOLELY for the purpose of giving his and Wong's little circle of cronies a woody.

Darkstar lays out his EXACT method, and impeccably documents his source material. He even ties one hand behind his back by refusing to use the tech manuals even when they would HELP him on the basis of canon policy.

Compare that to SDNet's "everything and the kitchen sink" and the blatant "upgunning" in the ICSes and it's clear who's the better researcher.

[[/OT rant]

At a quick glance, nearly half the links in that post Vance cites are links to SDNet or Wayne Poe (aka Darth Wong, or as I like to call him Darth WRONG) You stand about as much chance of getting an objective evaluation of anything relating to Darkstar OR Vs as a Christian would have of getting such on the Bible from a room full of Atheists.

SDNet (and it's dwellers) however ARE good at Wikki wars, board invasions and generally trolling.

In short, you can pretty much dismiss anything they say and I'd think twice about accepting anything someone who speaks well of them would say.

 

[blssdwlf]

Don't take this the wrong way but since you strongly recommended listening to Vance and after I verified 4 of his sources that turned out to be inconsistently used or not even have it at all, I'm a bit wary of where your evidence is coming from as well.

Sorry... I'm not baited that easily.

Best of luck.



Additionally... TMoST is a bad source of information.

Just FYI (though I'm sure you'll ignore that).

I'm not ignoring that at all. A vague dismissal of one the sources that Vance listed and your insistence that he should be listened to just shakes my confidence in your sourcing.

As to ignoring that, no. One of your arguments is that Jefferies came up with that number and reading TMOST it comes out that it preceded Jefferies by several months and all you can do is dismiss it as a bad source of information? Throw me a bone here then. Evidence, or another source to research on.

 

[Praxius]

Jeez.... 5 pages of bickering and I have yet to see anybody just do this and be done with it:

Enterprise (Constitution Class):
http://www.strekschematics.utvinternet.com/cutaways/orginalcut/orgentcutaway.jpg

Voyager (Intrepid Class):
http://www.strekschematics.utvinternet.com/cutaways/orginalcut/orgvoyagercutaway.jpg

^ Study and Compare with one another. I didn't IMG link the files because they're pretty big and would have screwed up the forum page layout.

 

[Shaw]

Throw me a bone here then.

Why?

See, I have no motivation to help you.

You took an adversarial stance, on the off chance I was misreading that I took (waisted) time writing a post that covers information that I've covered before, and you proved that I was actually right about you the first time.

You've burnt that bridge, so you're on your own.

Plus you've already misrepresented me a couple times in this thread, why in the world would you expect me to want to help you after that?

But believing everything in TMoST is as good a starting point as any. I believed everything in it back in the 1970s, and still believed most of what was in it as recently as ten years ago. You should hold it up as gospel (as you already have) even if it doesn't hold up under (lite) scrutiny.

Besides... based on the things you've said about me so far, why would you listen to anything I'd have to say?

Best of luck on your research.

 

[blssdwlf]

Let's not get sidetracked here by whether we like each other or not.

If you've got nothing, that's fine but don't make it out as some information you just have and not willing to share. You backed Vance and it didn't turn out so well and that brings up a question of your sourcing.

Throw me a bone here then.

Why?

See, I have no motivation to help you.

You took an adversarial stance, on the off chance I was misreading that I took (waisted) time writing a post that covers information that I've covered before, and you proved that I was actually right about you the first time.

You've burnt that bridge, so you're on your own.

Plus you've already misrepresented me a couple times in this thread, why in the world would you expect me to want to help you after that?

But believing everything in TMoST is as good a starting point as any. I believed everything in it back in the 1970s, and still believed most of what was in it as recently as ten years ago. You should hold it up as gospel (as you already have) even if it doesn't hold up under (lite) scrutiny.

Besides... based on the things you've said about me so far, why would you listen to anything I'd have to say?

Best of luck on your research.

 

[Shaw]

Let's not get sidetracked here by whether we like each other or not.

If you've got nothing, that's fine but don't make it out as some information you just have and not willing to share. You backed Vance and it didn't turn out so well and that brings up a question of your sourcing.

If you thought I had nothing, you would have stopped pressing me for info long ago.

See, the big problem here is that I don't care what you think.



Okay, that isn't entirely true... I do find the things you are believing from TMoST to be quite entertaining. Specially the things you should have spotted on your own without anyone else's help.


Again, I have no motivation to help you... and you have only yourself to blame for that.


This has been fun... Thanks!

 

[Vance]

Well, this is fun, I'm now part of the big 'Warsies Conspiracy'... because, I'm secretly a Star Wars fanzors and hate Star Trek so much that I've been using the 190,000MT DW figure in my secret plot to undermine Star Trek. I'm sure this plot involves the Gulf oil spill, getting Obama elected, and SOMETHING about 9/11 as well, right after I helped fake the moon landing.

Have fun guys.. or guy, as the case may actually be. Gotta lock sock-puppets.

 

[Santaman]

I really don't get the problem , everyone with a little comon sense would have no probems with 190.000 tons, if you take a big ass carrier and stick two submarines to it then tadaa! Indeed you've got around 190.000 tons give or take a few tons here and there...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Okay,that whole 'volumetrics' argument exists for no other reason than to 'prove how much better/bigger/badder Star Trek is better than Star Wars. There's a bunch of stupid on that site (taking canonista to the extremes here)

Plus the author of the site is a self-important canonista whacko par excellence. But his CALCULATIONS are valid, at least so far as the actual volumes of the ships in question, other mistakes notwithstanding.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I really don't get the problem , everyone with a little comon sense would have no probems with 190.000 tons, if you take a big ass carrier and stick two submarines to it then tadaa! Indeed you've got around 190.000 tons give or take a few tons here and there...

Plus Enterprise--sans nacelles--isn't quite as large as an aircraft carrier, so it does have that going for it.

 

[Vance]

Plus the author of the site is a self-important canonista whacko par excellence. But his CALCULATIONS are valid, at least so far as the actual volumes of the ships in question, other mistakes notwithstanding.

Considering his 'calculations' give a range between 200,000MT and over 2,000,000MT .. I'm thinking, not so much.

 

[blssdwlf]

In other words, you got nothing. Yes, it has been fun and you are welcome

Let's not get sidetracked here by whether we like each other or not.

If you've got nothing, that's fine but don't make it out as some information you just have and not willing to share. You backed Vance and it didn't turn out so well and that brings up a question of your sourcing.

If you thought I had nothing, you would have stopped pressing me for info long ago.

See, the big problem here is that I don't care what you think.



Okay, that isn't entirely true... I do find the things you are believing from TMoST to be quite entertaining. Specially the things you should have spotted on your own without anyone else's help.


Again, I have no motivation to help you... and you have only yourself to blame for that.


This has been fun... Thanks!

 

[blssdwlf]

Now, where were we? Ah yes, choices:

Verified sources:

• 190,000 Gross Deadweight Metric Tonnage = ??? Displacement of ??? ship ("Booklet of General Plans" - Franz Joseph)
• 190,000 Deadweight Tonnage Metric = Displacement weight of cargo, supplies, etc excluding hull & machinery ("Star Trek: Star Fleet Technical Manual" - Franz Joseph)
• "Gross Weight of 190,000 tons" of a naval cruiser-sized ship in the Series Format before Matt Jefferies started work = Total displacement including cargo, fuel, etc ("The Making of Star Trek" - Stephen Whitfield / Gene Roddenberry) In other words, that weight started out for a smaller ship before the ship was even designed by MJ.
• NO DATA GIVEN ("Star Trek: The Motion Picture: Blueprints." - David Kimble)

• "almost a million gross tons" = Mass of ship (episode: "Mudd's Women")

Fan Interpretation of TV Dialogue:

• Newtype Alpha's interpretation of Scotty's line = "gross [register] ton" = Total Internal Volume of ship although according to wikipedia, the use of gross ton to mean gross register ton didn't start taking place until after 1969.

Games

• FASA = ~170,000 tons = Weight of ship

It turns out that there are far more choices than just 190,000 tons and nearly a million tons. You can have

• 190,000 tons total weight for a naval-size cruiser (500'-600' in the 1960's) as per Roddenberry/TMOST, or
• 190,000 tons total weight after the resize to 947' as per TMOST, or
• 190,000 tons cargo/people/fuel as per Franz Joseph's Tech Manual, or
• some combination of the meaning of cargo and total from FJ's General Plans, or
• nearly a million gross tons mass from the TV series.

Barring any new evidence, Matt Jefferies did not come up with the 190,000 tons.

Oh, and don't forget: "Trust but Verify".

 

[Vance]

Blessed.. yes he did. You're just now chosing to ignore things you don't like and are very much seeming to troll for a flame-war here. At this point, I don't personally believe you're really that interested in this topic rather than simply wanting to start a 'flame war' against Shaw (since you seem to be personally targeting him).

I'm going to ask that you politely bow out at this point rather than continue this. For full disclosure, I've also sent a message to the mods to have a look at this as I'm personally getting a 'Bad Feeling' (TM) on how this is progressing.

 

[blssdwlf]

@Vance - when did Shaw do so?

He cited Jefferies and after being told by him to go do some research I came across the quotes in TMOST that refutes his claim (not Jefferies).

Did I push hard for more information? Yes, but no harder than anyone else's assertions of being correct on the subject...

If the Moderators feel that I've stepped out of line, I'll accept whatever decisions they make.

Where exactly does it come from?

Walter Matthew Jefferies, the designing of the Enterprise in the Fall of 1964.

It isn't my number, it is his. It isn't my design, it is his. I take no ownership or credit for his work.

A slip in the proofing of a script didn't cause anyone involved in TOS to revisit or revise that figure, so I don't see any reason to entertain it now.



But don't get me wrong... I fully endorse and encourage your use of the figure you've already decided on.

... get you two in such a defensive position?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Well, this is fun, I'm now part of the big 'Warsies Conspiracy'... because, I'm secretly a Star Wars fanzors and hate Star Trek so much that I've been using the 190,000MT DW figure in my secret plot to undermine Star Trek. I'm sure this plot involves the Gulf oil spill, getting Obama elected, and SOMETHING about 9/11 as well, right after I helped fake the moon landing.

Have fun guys.. or guy, as the case may actually be. Gotta lock sock-puppets.

You have to admit you're spouting the SDNet party line. And that place is the biggest bunch of anti-Trek trolls out there.

Yet Darkstar has outresearched, out analyzed and just plain out argued them at every turn, DESPITE their nasty tactics, personal attacks and general boorish behavior.

And for the record: I am not Darkstar, and have reported your accusation of dual to the Mods.

 

[Vance]

And for the record: I am not Darkstar, and have reported your accusation of dual to the Mods.

Go right ahead and knock yourself out there, buddy. I admit, I suspect highly that you're a sock-puppet, and it certainly has been the record of "Darkstar" or whatever the hell he's calling himself these days to do that on a regular basis... And, since I first ran into him on usenet back in .. what.. 1990 or so, I've never seen anyone defend him... except himself.

But, oh well. If you're not, then, really? The SDNet "Party Line"? Who the hell talks like that, seriously? I'm not even sure what you're accusing me of.. except trolling, perhaps? Maybe?

 

[Unicron]

Oy. I was really hoping this thread could have stayed on track, cause it was there for a while but it's pretty clearly off. I'm closing it for now, until I can go back through and look at the recent comments a bit more thoroughly.

Edit: After talking this over with the other mods, I'm giving Vance an infraction for this:

Go right ahead and knock yourself out there, buddy. I admit, I suspect highly that you're a sock-puppet, and it certainly has been the record of "Darkstar" or whatever the hell he's calling himself these days to do that on a regular basis... And, since I first ran into him on usenet back in .. what.. 1990 or so, I've never seen anyone defend him... except himself.

Don't make these sorts of accusations in public. If anyone has a concern about the behavior of another poster, PM me or an admin in private. But claiming another poster is a dual/sock puppet without evidence is considered trolling and therefore warnable.