There is an interesting shot where Kirk, Spock and Mitchell exit the turbolift onto the bridge and for a moment you can see that the consoles are supposed to appear symmetrical about the forward viewscreen:I don't have the video of WNMHGB to hand
There is an interesting shot where Kirk, Spock and Mitchell exit the turbolift onto the bridge and for a moment you can see that the consoles are supposed to appear symmetrical about the forward viewscreen:I don't have the video of WNMHGB to hand
![]()
They probably move the console out of the way to make room for the cameras.
The bridge fits perfectly well in my version. And my version is 1067' in length. So I disagree with that comment.I support everyone's right to the Enterprise of their imagination.
However, 947' was MJ's intention. Discarding that figure primarily because the hangar deck doesn't seem to fit ignores a more important and better documented full size set that does fit the 947' size: The bridge. At the intended scale, and only at the intended scale, does the turbolift fit into the visible tube at the back of the bridge dome. It seems misplaced to reject the 947' feature because the miniature hangar set (which we're not really sure of the dimensions and configuration of) doesn't fit, while throwing out the obvious and well documented bridge scale cue. At the very least, hanging on to the intended length is not "silly."
Once again, I'm not saying one cannot have a bigger E if one wants it. I'm merely pointing out that staying with MJ's size is not silly or indefensible.
M.
This is an argument that gets a whole lot of "absolutist" focus from some folks... ie, they say that "947' is the correct length and you'd better accept it. If you don't, you're WRONG-WRONG-WRONG."
That correlation for the turbolift location(s) only works if there was a consistency to it. Since you referenced Phase II, I'll reference the TOS movies... [snip]
You know, that's almost exactly how I see it. Cool.I've always assumed that Kirk inherited the Enteprise which was largely unchanged from how it was under Pike's command (and which had a crew of about 200).no worries
![]()
I guess Kirk had a minor refit after this episode![]()
The encounter with the barrier just trashed the ship, and as a result, while the ship was able to LIMP back to Federation space using scavenged components from a mining facility, the damage was very severe and the ship had to undergo a full refitting.
I've always said that the "WNMHGB" ship was still the "all military" version of the ship, a heavy cruiser mainly dedicated to security operations, not long-range exploration. There were likely quite a few of these, not merely twelve.
But twelve were refit and relaunched as "explorers." The advent of replicator technology (food slots, quartermaster department requirements, spare parts manufacturing, etc) freed up a large amount of what was previously cargo space aboard this ship, and they basically put a full science vessel's complement of personnel and facilities into the freed up space. The Enterprise, and twelve other heavy cruisers, became the first "exploratory cruisers" and were simultaneously launched on a widely-publicized "five year exploratory mission" with great fanfare. When the Enterprise was the only ship to return, fully intact, from that mission, Starfleet elected to make the Enterprise insignia that of the entire Starfleet. (That, and I'm sure they were getting sick of coming up with custom insignia for every single ship they launched!)
So, there was likely at least a year between WNMHGB and The Corbomite Manuever. While the outside of the ship was mostly unchanged, the internal configuration was altered almost as dramatically as it was during the eighteen months prior to ST-TMP.
Not really true... (1067-947)/947 * 100 = 12.7%. Pretty far from 2%.Your ideal scale is a hair over 2% larger than 947' -- Given the references available for the size of the bridge set and the exterior dome, this is well within the margin of error. It is hardly conclusive enough to support an uncompromising rejection of the originally stated length. Either figure may work. We just know one of them was stated by the designer.
Not "arguing" so much as "discussing."Not sure who you're arguing with, here. I began and ended my post with an acknowledgment that everyone is free to imagine an Enterprise of whatever size they wish.
Yes, you did. I didn't agree with that particular conclusion, however, based upon my own work, but that's another case of "your mileage may vary."I was merely responding to a post that maintained that the hangar deck was the only reasonable driver for finding the scale of the ship. I made a well reasoned argument for why the bridge is a more reliable guide.
Don't misquote me... what I said was only that those who treat that number as some sort of "holy article of faith" are being a bit silly, not that it's silly to prefer it. Nor was I necessarily attributing that to you... quite the contrary, in fact. As you said, you did make it quite clear that you don't have a "religious level of ferver" about this... and my comment was thus clearly not directed towards you.And at the very least, MJ's original figure of 947' is not "silly." Neither are those of us who prefer his scale. That is all I have to say about the matter.
...
Plus: The only time we see crew people (or civilians?) out of uniform is in the two pilots. Shades of the Galaxy class!
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.