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 why rooms are smaller when Kirk takes command.
Last edited:
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.
As fanatical as I am about TOS and it's still and probably always will remain my favorite of the series, the TOS ship, Movie Refit and SNW version are all roughly the same sizes. Otherwise a lot in all three incarnations ceases making sense.
Last edited:
I already explained it:
In case that wasn't clear, 2.5 splotches is a reference to a number starting with 1, a skinny number in most typefaces. Furthermore, the second double-splotch has its first digit seemingly denser than the second, which rules out, say, 75, and the last two appear to have final digits of equal density. That would tend to suggest zeroes.
(Sigh) . . .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.
First, we already know the default character width thanks to the digits. Second, we can consider what typically fits against a scale bar. Finally, as noted multiple times now in this thread, if you are attempting to suggest that something is not readable, these images -- featuring half the lines blanked out, and only over the text, and on both close-ups -- are inherently deceptive.
I had tried to avoid concluding intentional deceptiveness previously, simply suggesting that images which are compromised and therefore do not prove your "unreadable" point should not continue to be used in attempts to prove it, because your point isn't what ends up demonstrated. I also explained how an honest individual would approach that issue.
Since you're using them again without any acknowledgement of the problems, I must ask, is there some intellectually honest reason to keep trying to use the deceptive images that I am missing?
One is not absolved of responsibility for (nor evades the judgement of peers by) knowingly posting misleading or obfuscatory information designed to misdirect readers toward a specific erroneous preferred conclusion while saying "YMMV" or claiming it to be just an opinion.
First, you have made statements purporting to be objective, such as the fresh "it is not there when viewing a CRT".
Second, weighing in favoring a particular conclusion adds mass to one side or the other for those moved by consensus and general conversation tenor. (See: "Resistance Typing") Further, where there is knowledge of an individual, it brings with it one's reputation, which, if perceived (or misperceived) as good, serves as an argument all its own in the eyes of many even if the specific path to the conclusion isn't adequately covered. (For those of us more interested in the merit of the arguments themselves than any of that emotionalist assessment, this is all mumbo-Jumbo, but the noise can serve to drown out good arguments.)
Not at all. I believe that, when confronted with facts you don't like which challenge your existing opinion or preferred conclusion, you will seek reasons against acquiescing to those facts rather than changing your chosen conclusion. That is, by itself, not a terrible thing . . . it is the very nature of, and directly incentivized by, adversarial systems of debate, and can be superior for fact-finding to non-adversarial systems where no one questions the prevailing opinion.
However, adversarial systems can also incentivize completely dishonest gaslighting douchebaggery, as in the case of scummy lawyers. The reason that happens is because their focus becomes the adversarial goal and not the truth, so any argument that seems to effectively move the goal forward by directing folks to the preferred conclusion is considered good, no matter how dishonest or counterfactual the argument may be. Indeed, in such a circumstance, the only reason that scummy lawyers maintain even a tenuous relation to the truth when seeking to twist it is because if the lies are too obvious they may fail to move the goal forward, backfiring by producing angry rejection, mocking laughter, or both.
So, it is absolutely crucial, even when engaged in an adversarial scenario, to avoid losing touch with reality. This not only includes keeping oneself honest with respect to the facts and being ready to accept that an alternate conclusion may be correct, but also avoiding the temptation to try to find anything, no matter how irrelevant, to try to latch on to as a means of resistance.
Wouldn't 0 80 160 320 also work? Or 0 90 180 360?
It does for me as I categorize the depicted ones on screen as one entity and the illustrations and diagrams as another unless it matches the depicted one. But as always, IMHO and YMMV.
No, of course not. It and all the other resources are and have always been there. It is also in The Art of Star Trek.
The main reason is to show that you can't read any of those numbers. Or even the text below it on a CRT. The pictures speak for themselves. Shouldn't you know better that CRTs look like this rather than complaining that there are lines missing?
Isn't that exactly what YMMV and IMHO do in a civil conversation? I have an opinion and you have your opinion and your mileage is definitely varied. How did you skip from that to throwing around accusations of misleading information?
You are producing quite a bit more noise than I am.
It reads as if you are doing this gaslighting for your own benefit. Do you think you are in some kind of Vs debate with me?
No they wouldn't, not in the context of being used on a scale bar indicating length. Because who the fuck would have a scale bar counting by 80s or 90s? Not Matt Jefferies, that's for sure.
Some oddball designer in the future?
If you think it is 0 50 100 200 that's cool. I just don't see the numbers on that CRT.
We know, but some ship rescale truthers had been saying for years that there was no canon evidence for TOS ship lengths, meaning it was open season for rescaling to whatever size.
People pointing out "The Enterprise Incident" graphic thus present a problem. To be sure, this has come up before, and various escape routes have been developed. The one you're encountering here involves them trying to argue that the scale as seen in "The Enterprise Incident" was tiny and unreadable and thus unknown and unknowable until the Blu-Ray high-definition remastering of 2006-2008, despite the fact that it was perfectly readable years before that (I was using a 2001 Trek5.com shot on my site in 2003, which would've been one of the earliest periods where such things were readily available online). Oh, and as you note, it was literally published the next month in book form, which as someone else pointed out was the equivalent of being handed a high-def screencap today.
So despite the fact that it's been perfectly readable for about 25 years at bare minimum (and I'd love to have the 1992/1993 Japanese LaserDiscs just for funsies), the fundamental (if not quite directly stated) claim is that it wasn't really canon unless it was readable in 1968 on an NTSC television in the United States . . . which is a fairly unique point of view.
Aaaaaand I'm done. The pictures speak for themselves insofar as your level of honesty, nothing more. CRTs do not "look like this" when text is involved and at no other time. Look at the damn Klingon ship's centerline here and how clear it is:
And yet the text above doesn't look like that.
And in the other close-up, where the Enterprise upper portion is clear but all of the sudden the text area goes to hell, then (must be magic!) clears up again, leaving a perfectly clear desk:
So, cut the crap. Those images are trash and an honest person wouldn't keep trying to use them.
Wow. I said they do not excuse posting misleading or obfuscatory information, and you're all "that's exactly what they do". No, the absolute hell they do not, but thanks for the public service message regarding how you mark things.
You've definitely selected the goal-based adversarial approach. It was unwise.
