Floor-windows make me sad.
How big was the Enterprise?
- Thread starter Admiral Jean-Luc Picard
- Start date
Floor-windows make me sad.
There's an argument to be made that a ship that could possibly be out in deep space for upwards of 5 years would have more spacious and comfortable living quarters, if only for the mental state of the crew.
It's also been shown to have expanded recreational facilities. The ship has a massive foward lounge AND a cocktail bar. Clearly crew comfort is a consideration. We've even seen them toying with Holodecks for just such a reason.
We also know that the crew size will eventually double, so there's a built-in explanation for way rooms are smaller when Kirk takes command.
When I was in the tenth grade, I took a course on drafting.
Rule One: The drawing is the approximation. Don't trust it.
Two: The numbers given are the EXACT requirement.
No draftsman will draw perfectly. So the numbes rule.
This BEFORE Computer Aided Design programs.
A depiction by a computer aided design program, will be, in some ways better, but not perfect.
Rule One: The drawing is the approximation. Don't trust it.
Two: The numbers given are the EXACT requirement.
No draftsman will draw perfectly. So the numbes rule.
This BEFORE Computer Aided Design programs.
A depiction by a computer aided design program, will be, in some ways better, but not perfect.
For what it's worth, there was a time when the Discovery fans on Twitter were insisting that the Discoprise was marked as 289 meters and thus those who said had to be bigger were hateful bigots.
So, I ended up having a go at modeling the escape or transfer corridor scene from "Such Sweet Sorrow" because it seemed to me that the corridors had been straight, which would literally connect the ship sizes. Unfortunately, I found that they were not straight, but I did get a nice graphic of the ships moving alongside as shown on the computer screen. Given a 750 meter Discovery, the Discoprise scaling at that point was 515 meters . . . not much more than 442, but maybe enough to fix the shuttlebay problem. After all, if there is any scaling problem appearing to require a larger vessel, we MUST upscale, right? Right?!?
In 'Star Trek: Discovery Designing Starships', some of Eaves' initial drawings had the reimagined Enterprise superimposed over the classic Jefferies' design, with the length being around 350m.
He imagined that it could gradually evolve into the TOS version with a refits and revamps. But it was someone else that bumped it up to look good alongside Discovery, and changed the nacelle struts.
That's probably the limit of my knowledge when it comes to this ship.
He imagined that it could gradually evolve into the TOS version with a refits and revamps. But it was someone else that bumped it up to look good alongside Discovery, and changed the nacelle struts.
That's probably the limit of my knowledge when it comes to this ship.
Those are blobs. Is it 0 10 20 40? 0 25 50 100? 0 50 100 200?
How does one divine "SCALE IN FEET" as individual letters from a CRT let alone numbers? I want to believe your words but it is not there when viewing a CRT.
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
I did not say that you all are supposed to disregard the size comparison as I had put it as In My Humble Opinion and added a YMMV.
Yeah, this part is how I see it.
But since you wrote "we are supposed to" in your argument then is that what is bothering you? Do you believe I'm forcing you to think a certain way?
This one. 0 50 100 200.
It's the only sequence of numbers that makes sense in the context of the width of the blobs* and the position of the blobs** above the discernible scale bar (you can make out that it is segmented. Both now and back then.)
There is a blob of width X, followed by a blob twice that width, XX, followed by two blobs that are three times the width of the first, XXX and XXX.
The blobs are placed above the scale such that X is farthest to the left, XX is half the distance to the first XXX and the second XXX is twice the distance from X as the first XXX is.
Given how indiscriminate they were about mixing and matching the use of the 4", AMT, 33", pilot and series versions of the Enterprise with all their differences, I don't see how calling out this one diagram for its differences makes much sense.
