Although they can serve as starting points for Okudagrams of the week, we have no evidence of MSDs quite as dynamic as Timo suggests (because they are not intended to be, in the real world). Also, the idea that the Defiant's MSD permanently shows certain four decks is difficult to sustain, because the intent was to show all four decks, which can be verified using the deck plans. That said, it is believable that certain details would be left out for clarity or added on user request, but I see no basis for dismissing the whole thing on the assumption that viewers won't pay attention. It is best to analyze with the most discerning viewer in mind and reject only those aspects which cannot possibly be rationalized. The relative sizes of shuttles and escape pods can always be tweaked since the MSD need not be a scale drawing. The Defiant's fourth level isn't continuous anyway -- who is to say Starfleet didn't label one of those sections Deck 5?
Nova class deckplans
- Thread starter Vinkula
- Start date
How is that "best" when you're starting with an analysis that will only satisfy 1% of your viewers while forcing the other 99% to direct their attention to details that they previously considered only background scenery?
Your analysis only needs to fit the most obvious visual cues--that is FOREGROUND elements--and let the background elements either be ignored or rationalized with a minimal explanation. And all explanations failing, "It's not an accurate display" is usually satisfactory as well. We had to do this with the first Defiant MSD anyway, not to mention the TOS-style Franz Joseph diagrams that somehow showed up in TSFS.
About deck 5 on the Defiant, you can see that the nacelles do extend well below the level of deck 4, and the lower pulse phaser cannons are down there, as is some walking space. Whether or not you want to call that deck 5 or not is optional.
I can argue that the same viewers who are likely to listen for the highest deck number in dialogue or to think about the rows of lights are also those who are likely to pay attention to the MSD when it appears in closeups (no, it is not permanently a background graphic--there are many cases where we can easily see the deck count). You are suggesting that the analyst take a subjective guess as to what is important, leading no doubt to pages of disagreement with other analysts, as opposed to piecing together everything that can be discerned at our latest screencap resolution and dismissing only blooper-level issues.
The FJ blueprints are precisely such an issue, especially in ST III when they are used to point out Spock's quarters. There is no conceivable reason for them to be using such graphics, so I dismiss them, and I don't think that other people can defend them either. However, that is not the case with the MSD, aside from certain inaccuracies like the shuttle in the first MSD, but that can also be attributed to artistic license, interpreted as a generic picture and so forth.
The FJ blueprints are precisely such an issue, especially in ST III when they are used to point out Spock's quarters. There is no conceivable reason for them to be using such graphics, so I dismiss them, and I don't think that other people can defend them either. However, that is not the case with the MSD, aside from certain inaccuracies like the shuttle in the first MSD, but that can also be attributed to artistic license, interpreted as a generic picture and so forth.
No, I'm saying that we know FOR A FACT that the MSD is less important than the actual model. We know this because the MSD was not designed by the same people who did the model, and that Drexler didn't have a great deal of information about the model other than its shape and a very rough estimate of its size (in fact it's questionable whether he had anything to work with other than a side view drawing and a ballpark size figure).
It's not like the NuEnteprise where we have alot of external cues for scaling and nothing concrete to contradict them. In Defiant we have several clear external cues, and the ONLY thing that contradicts them is the MSD.
So what do we have? If you go by the model--measuring the "bridge module" feature against the set design and the windows on the lower section being the same size they were in "The Valiant," then we've got a Defiant in the neighborhood of 200 meters (between about 180 and 210). If you go by the MSD, then it's a Defiant of 120 meters. In the former estimate, all you have to explain is the MSD. In the latter, you have to explain the windows, the bridge module, and you have to figure out why a ship with four decks (actually, three decks and two crawlspaces) would have three shuttlebays and a turbolift.
Same issue as far as I'm concerned. They threw something up on screen that looked good and hoped nobody noticed. Most people didn't, and the ones who were smart enough to notice were also smart enough to ignore the contradiction.
Same deal with the MSD. Most people won't notice that the cutaway doesn't reflect the ship's intended internal arrangement, and the ones who are smart enough to notice are meant to understand what's really going on.
In "To the Death", we don't exactly see what our heroes call Deck 5. We merely hear Sisko order a turbolift ride to that location with the Vorta and the First, with the heavy implication that the Jem'Hadar are accommodated down there. We never quite see the accommodations, though. All we know is that the turbolift will reach that location, which might be difficult if the deck weren't full-height or at least close to it.
The other episode to mention Deck 5 is "Rejoined", where the ship takes a hit there but we don't see the location. The same hit damages Engineering, but there's no pressing reason to think that Engineering and Deck 5 would be the same thing. Apparently, the hit on Deck 5 did not endanger any personnel. Perhaps it's only fit for accommodating professional masochists and hardened clone warriors?
It does make sense that the ship wouldn't have excess habitable-height deck area anywhere, because if it did, the standard 40 crew could start living in more luxury. Placing the Jem'Hadar on an uninhabitable deck would make perfect sense, then. It's a bit difficult to see how anybody could be living down in the warp coil cowlings, but if that's to be our Deck 5, then it's at least theoretically workable. Sisko did take care to order his turbolift to "Deck 5, Section 1", allowing the deck to be split in two.
If there's nothing of "normal" interest in the engine cowling bottoms, then it would be defensible for the MSD to be deliberately "faulty" and give more room to Deck 4 by omitting (most of) Deck 5.
Timo Saloniemi
In other news, the reason the Enterprise has no toilets is because the Captain's chair actually contains a hidden rectal transporter. 
If you want to know the location of the toilet on the 1701-D, take it from someone who knows:
http://io9.com/5318344/wheres-the-bathroom-on-the-enterprise-9-space-toilets
And the main floor of Engineering on the Defiant is deck 2, section 5. Sisko said so in DS9: One Little Ship, and it actually makes sense.
http://io9.com/5318344/wheres-the-bathroom-on-the-enterprise-9-space-toilets
And the main floor of Engineering on the Defiant is deck 2, section 5. Sisko said so in DS9: One Little Ship, and it actually makes sense.
newtype_alpha: the MSD probably wasn't developed by the same people who worked on the model, although Doug Drexler did say he had input from Gary Hutzel, but that doesn't matter. Their information (assuming there was any layout information aside from the 560' size and maybe the two rows of windows) wasn't clearly presented to the viewer, while the MSD is onscreen telling us exactly what goes on in specific parts of the ship, so the MSD is more important. I would agree with you if we had frequent shots of the camera zooming into one of the lights to reveal a person standing there, then entering a turbolift labeled Deck 5, but we have no such evidence. That is the canon reality. Also, your mapping of the exterior to the bridge is purely speculative, since we have seen no official mapping to the exterior other than the deck plans.
So what if I have to explain the turbolift? It is there, although certain vertical rides can be discounted as bloopers. The fourth deck is a full deck in height, although it covers less surface area. There is a tiny shuttlebay and two tiny shuttlepod bays (BTW, the Deck 4 plan with those bays can be seen on an Okudagram while the original Defiant is being destroyed). The point is that all this information is there, it is discernible, it remained there for years, Doug Drexler didn't ignore it when developing the DS9TM deck plans, they showed up onscreen as well so we cannot dismiss it.
You can try to develop alternate layouts all you want, but the discerning viewer will have trouble with them because the MSD keeps reappearing onscreen, and such a viewer is also the audience for tech manuals and such. It doesn't matter what was intended, the issue is what can be discerned onscreen, and any successful theory has to explain as much as possible. It is not about making life easier for the analyst by saying, "Well, if only they hadn't put up such a detailed graphic, we would have a much easier time dealing with the various ad-hoc decisions". Well, the detailed graphic is there, a lot, Sisko decided to keep it, so we have to deal with it along with everything else, by taking advantage of the fact that while the graphic is explicit about the number of physical levels, the dialogue and the rows of lights aren't and so forth.
So what if I have to explain the turbolift? It is there, although certain vertical rides can be discounted as bloopers. The fourth deck is a full deck in height, although it covers less surface area. There is a tiny shuttlebay and two tiny shuttlepod bays (BTW, the Deck 4 plan with those bays can be seen on an Okudagram while the original Defiant is being destroyed). The point is that all this information is there, it is discernible, it remained there for years, Doug Drexler didn't ignore it when developing the DS9TM deck plans, they showed up onscreen as well so we cannot dismiss it.
You can try to develop alternate layouts all you want, but the discerning viewer will have trouble with them because the MSD keeps reappearing onscreen, and such a viewer is also the audience for tech manuals and such. It doesn't matter what was intended, the issue is what can be discerned onscreen, and any successful theory has to explain as much as possible. It is not about making life easier for the analyst by saying, "Well, if only they hadn't put up such a detailed graphic, we would have a much easier time dealing with the various ad-hoc decisions". Well, the detailed graphic is there, a lot, Sisko decided to keep it, so we have to deal with it along with everything else, by taking advantage of the fact that while the graphic is explicit about the number of physical levels, the dialogue and the rows of lights aren't and so forth.
Last edited:
There's no "probably" there. It WASN'T. Ergo the original dimensions and the rough idea of internal arrangements envisioned by the model makers aren't reflected in the MSD.
They ARE, however, reflected in the model. And since the physical appearance of the Defiant is far more important than a background graphic in the engine room, it is better to start with the former and try to reconcile the latter. It's just like the FJ blueprints in ST:III: the monitor graphic doesn't resemble the model, which is fine, because anyone smart enough to realize this is smart enough to either ignore it or explain it away.
Which, considering how many things in this and other MSDs are already contradicted on screen, and considering how many things in the tech manual are already outmoded, doesn't make a lot of difference. The DS9 manual contained alot of information, to be sure, but unlike the TNG manual they weren't as interested in accurate production/background information as pretty graphics and cool diagrams. Ultimately, even the tech manual is just another Treklit item.
Okay.
Two rows of windows on the bottom undercut can be discerned on screen. Extrapolating deck heights to the rest of the ship, this measures out to a ship with at least six decks (seven if one of them is a short deck). The bridge module feature on the top of the hull can be scaled to match the bridge set itself, which again would be consistent with six to seven decks in the neighborhood of 200 meters. The lower shuttlebay is visible on screen as the shuttle leaves the ship; at a similar size to the Type-6 shuttlecraft, the external hatch (though it doesn't appear on the model at all) would only fit into a 180m or larger vessel; the shuttle itself would not fit into single-deck bay, which would put the top of the shuttlebay directly under the bridge and invalidate the MSD anyway.
It's just the FJ blueprint thing all over again. The only difference is the Defiant MSDs are both prettier and less accurate.
Well, here's deck 3 of the Defiant at 120 meters overall length, with the Chaffee (Type-10 shuttlepod) scaled to the EAS-recommended length of 6.5 meters sitting in the launch bay, just as it was before the launch we saw in DS9: The Sound of Her Voice. It seems to fit just as seen on screen. But, yes, the upper level of that launch bay is on deck 2. What I do have a problem with, however, is Doug Drexler's recent comment that the tractor emitter is on the ceiling of the launch bay, in which case how does one get the shuttle out of the way in order to tractor a runabout, etc., not to mention a salvaged Jem'Hadar attack ship? To be fair, he did mention some helper emitters in the ring, but still, . . .
It wasn't the Chaffee in "Sound of Her Voice," though. It was the larger design, which IIRC is about 9 meters long.
The implicit window rows aren't more important than an explicit, recurring MSD graphic. This is absolutely nothing like TSFS, where an explicit exterior contradicts an equally explicit interior schematic -- drawn up for a totally different ship -- resulting in a blooper. Yes, in most cases, the reasonable hypothesis would be that they are windows, but that hypothesis is contradicted here by the MSD.
That is a very sweeping generalization. Instead, we must painstakingly analyze each case, starting with the premise that what is onscreen is canon. In this case, the persistence and highly detailed nature of the MSD forms the core of our onscreen observations, and then we must explain any outliers which aren't as explicit. The MSD says that there are four decks and that they contain A, B, C, D...for five seasons. It need not be a perfect scale graphic, but we know that MSDs usually are pretty close, because the artist is normally copying more or less final deck outlines.
We don't know that they are windows, so the remainder of this argument falls apart.
We don't know whether the "bridge module feature" is in fact the bridge module feature. This is not Voyager or Enterprise-D.
The size of the Chaffee is highly disputed, since a proper interior set was never built. (Yes, it was the Chaffee leaving the center bay, which does fit the model aside from a black rectangular feature that normally sits on top of that hatch.) The dialogue references a shuttlepod, but Doug Drexler wanted a full-sized shuttle, which he says is about 26 feet (7.9 meters) long according to his copy of the LightWave model. I can measure a length of roughly seven meters on the deck plans.
Since the shuttle was designed along with the deck plans, the "design size" in this case would be one that fits those plans, specifically the intended bay interior, but the actual canon is somewhat uncertain (most VFX shots are). Bernd's 6.5-meter size is a guesstimate based on the visuals and an assumed 120m Defiant.
No, it's nothing like that. One is a blooper next to a highly detailed, 95% unambiguous Probertian exterior, the other was used onscreen for almost five seasons, then replaced with a mere evolution of the original, not to mention the fact that onscreen deck plans were drawn up based on that MSD.
As noted before:
1) The three references to Deck 5 are ambiguous, since we never see where Deck 5 is located. Ok, so it is probably a standing-height deck because of Sisko's ride over there, but "Deck 5" can also be a section of the unusually shaped fourth level.
2) The turbolift schematic isn't clearly visible. Doug Drexler also says that the labels were added by the Captain's Chair people, and that he had specifically avoided the size issue with that schematic. The long vertical turbolift rides could be considered bloopers -- I don't know that they would fit even at six decks.
3) "Deck 2" was sealed off in "Starship Down", but we don't see the full extent of "Deck 2".
4) The rows of windows haven't been proven as two distinct, 12' decks.
5) Your "bridge module" feature need not be one.
6) The size of the Chaffee is uncertain, but it is most likely supposed to be consistent with Doug Drexler's deck plans.
Last edited:
If the bay looks like the drawing in the DS9 TM, we have three possibilities:
1) The rolling door beneath the control booth leads to a hangar that accommodates the Chaffee, just barely, underneath the computer cores; the two tiers of the bay don't coincide exactly with the rest of the decks.
2) The Chaffee is flipped to a vertical position for stowage.
3) The Chaffee is virtually never carried aboard the ship.
In cases 1 and 2, though, some changes have to made to the deck plans, which fail to give any quarter to the idea of a control booth.
The vastly preferable option would be to indeed have a side alcove to the vertical cylinder hangar as shown in the TM picture, but a good-sized one, perhaps leading to a cargo hold or possibly to the suggested antimatter tankage area (with the pods being brought aboard via the cylinder bay).
They could be considered equipment malfunctions. None of our starship turbolifts have ever behaved in a manner that would allow us to believe that a single passing light means a single passing deck. Rather, the lights would appear to be indicators for direction of movement. And sometimes they might misfire, indicating the wrong direction or speed.
In "The Search pt II", we see Sisko and Bashir evacuate in a shuttlepod that has an aft hatch. Granted, it's in a dream sequence, but if it's supposed to be believable, then it's not one of the Type 18 pods which only have side gullwing doors and no provision for an aft hatch. Which means it might well be the Chaffee, allowing us to believe in a minimum alternative for size.
Timo Saloniemi
Unless you can show me that the exterior of the Defiant is any less explicit than the exterior of the TMP Enterprise, this is just special pleading. It's the same situation in two different cases; it's not a BLOOPER at all, it's just a technical inconsistency that most of the audience isn't supposed to notice.
As tech manuals are not considered canon, it's also a FACT.
Yes we do. We see one from the inside in "The Valiant."
Just so we're clear, we're talking about this thing, right? Last time I checked, that's the Type-10 shuttle, a design that was estimated at about nine meters long. I've never seen it estimated much lower than that, but I admit I haven't looked into anything Defiant related in about eight months.
No it wasn't.
Except no "deck plans" actually appear on screen, it's only a half of one deck, and it is actually based on the DS9 Tech manual.
(duplicate post)
Last edited:
In case of the redesigned Enterprise, I can simply look at this cross-section or this cross-section in order to see exactly what the designer intended with decks and windows. There are no doubt a couple of inconsistencies in the canon, but nobody will dispute the overall layout, because nobody disputes the intended size of a thousand feet, more or less. The entire subtle design, with all those windows and exterior hatches, would break down if that happened. This is what I mean by an explicit layout.
In case of the Defiant, I can probably contact Tony Meininger who built the model in order to find out exactly what was intended for those lights, and yes, I might learn that they were supposed to be windows representing two decks, but that wouldn't matter. The 560' size was in dispute, Doug Drexler says he was asked to draw four decks, and so we ended up with a new layout of a 120m or so, one that remained in the canon.
Faced with such a contradiction (again, assuming I can prove those lights were supposed to be windows), I'm giving precedence to the canonical layout which tells me exactly what is supposed to be in that area, rather than the exterior which merely suggests what might be there. The rows of lights do have more canon appearances than the MSD, but since we don't know what they are, we give precedence to the exact schematics telling us how the ship is structured (the MSD and the derived deck plans).
In case of the Valiant, you did see a window but you can't prove where it is supposed to be located, because there is no VFX shot matching the interior to the exterior (sort of like the final shot of the series). The Defiant has all kinds of features behind hatches, so it is quite conceivable that the window is normally covered. If you take a look at screencap number 409 on this page, you will see the plans for Decks 1-3. Screencap number 567 on this page shows the Deck 4 plan.
Yes, "that thing" is the Type-10 shuttle (DS9TM nomenclature), and yes it was designed along with the DS9TM schematics (OK, I'm not sure if it was precisely before or after the deck plans, but clearly around the time when those diagrams were drawn -- Doug Drexler mentions the interior cutaway). Drexler developed the shuttle and its bay, then sent over schematics for use on the show, and the same designs also ended up in the DS9 tech manual, released months later. The Defiant's shuttle is named Chaffee, and you probably saw it estimated at 9 meters because of its size in the DS9TM (9.64m), which is proportionally inconsistent with the stated width and height in the same book, and also with the scale of the shuttle in the deck plans (about 7m).
I asked Rick Sternbach about this, since he wrote the text, but he doesn't recall how he came up with that number -- my guess is he was measuring the Deck 3 plan using the assumed length of 171m. I also asked Brandon MacDougall who worked on that sequence at Foundation Imaging, but his model is 42 feet long and it was scaled down 15% from this size in order to fit the shot. (This number would make a lot of sense if the LightWave Defiant was scaled at 560 feet in that shot, which we know was the preferred VFX size used in the CG model and by Gary Hutzel in general, but it wouldn't make any sense with Doug Drexler's design of the bay, so I'm treating it as a shot-specific outlier.)
Likewise, I asked Doug Drexler on his blog, and he said his copy of the LightWave model measures 26 feet. Larry Nemecek also posted a handwritten scale chart showing a 25' length, recorded during a meeting with Gary Hutzel. Based on this information, Doug Drexler's copy of the LightWave model is probably showing the intended scale, which was likely driven by Drexler's design of the interior bay, but it's hard to be sure, since no detailed exterior or interior sets were ever built.
In case of the Defiant, I can probably contact Tony Meininger who built the model in order to find out exactly what was intended for those lights, and yes, I might learn that they were supposed to be windows representing two decks, but that wouldn't matter. The 560' size was in dispute, Doug Drexler says he was asked to draw four decks, and so we ended up with a new layout of a 120m or so, one that remained in the canon.
Faced with such a contradiction (again, assuming I can prove those lights were supposed to be windows), I'm giving precedence to the canonical layout which tells me exactly what is supposed to be in that area, rather than the exterior which merely suggests what might be there. The rows of lights do have more canon appearances than the MSD, but since we don't know what they are, we give precedence to the exact schematics telling us how the ship is structured (the MSD and the derived deck plans).
In case of the Valiant, you did see a window but you can't prove where it is supposed to be located, because there is no VFX shot matching the interior to the exterior (sort of like the final shot of the series). The Defiant has all kinds of features behind hatches, so it is quite conceivable that the window is normally covered. If you take a look at screencap number 409 on this page, you will see the plans for Decks 1-3. Screencap number 567 on this page shows the Deck 4 plan.
Yes, "that thing" is the Type-10 shuttle (DS9TM nomenclature), and yes it was designed along with the DS9TM schematics (OK, I'm not sure if it was precisely before or after the deck plans, but clearly around the time when those diagrams were drawn -- Doug Drexler mentions the interior cutaway). Drexler developed the shuttle and its bay, then sent over schematics for use on the show, and the same designs also ended up in the DS9 tech manual, released months later. The Defiant's shuttle is named Chaffee, and you probably saw it estimated at 9 meters because of its size in the DS9TM (9.64m), which is proportionally inconsistent with the stated width and height in the same book, and also with the scale of the shuttle in the deck plans (about 7m).
I asked Rick Sternbach about this, since he wrote the text, but he doesn't recall how he came up with that number -- my guess is he was measuring the Deck 3 plan using the assumed length of 171m. I also asked Brandon MacDougall who worked on that sequence at Foundation Imaging, but his model is 42 feet long and it was scaled down 15% from this size in order to fit the shot. (This number would make a lot of sense if the LightWave Defiant was scaled at 560 feet in that shot, which we know was the preferred VFX size used in the CG model and by Gary Hutzel in general, but it wouldn't make any sense with Doug Drexler's design of the bay, so I'm treating it as a shot-specific outlier.)
Likewise, I asked Doug Drexler on his blog, and he said his copy of the LightWave model measures 26 feet. Larry Nemecek also posted a handwritten scale chart showing a 25' length, recorded during a meeting with Gary Hutzel. Based on this information, Doug Drexler's copy of the LightWave model is probably showing the intended scale, which was likely driven by Drexler's design of the interior bay, but it's hard to be sure, since no detailed exterior or interior sets were ever built.
Last edited:
Neither of which ever ended up on screen, and the final design deviated significantly from those cross sections both inside and out.
That's not "explicit," that's "better consensus." Such a thing doesn't exist for the Defiant because nobody bothered to flesh out its actual details in a way that made sense to anyone. This is way many of the details that later showed up in canon--the drop-out shuttlebay, for example--contradict other parts of canon by introducing visual inconsistencies.
And I again remind you that no "layout" was actually established at any time in the series and there's nothing much to give precedence to. The MSD doesn't reflect the internal arrangement of the Defiant anymore tan the FJ blueprints in ST-III do; in an obvious contradiction between a model and a computer graphic, I generally chose the model.
There are no external features on the entire ship that is even remotely the right size or shape to fit that window OTHER than the windows on the underside of the hull.
And this is where I finally take the hint: the ONLY thing you give precedence to at all is the Defiant MSD. I'm not sure why that is when we've already been told by Rich Sternbach himself that MSDs should not be used as a size estimate, but there we are. I'm using the ship's external features, the deck count, the turbolift count, the shuttlecraft, the crew size, the fact that it must contain at least one aft torpedo bay at centerline and myriad other features, and you're using... well, the MSD, and nothing else.
I'm not using only the MSD. As noted many times, I'm using it as the starting point, because it is a detailed, persistent graphic that ended up onscreen and remained there for several seasons. The goal is to rationalize everything else without making that graphic look like its fictional artist had no clue about the ship. We don't need to assume it's a perfectly scaled graphic, we don't need to assume it shows everything, we can even dismiss some parts as bloopers (such as the warp core that seems to go down into empty space -- fixed for the revised MSD), but we cannot dismiss it outright.
Your strategy:
1) To take Rick Sternbach's statement out of context -- as noted in this discussion already, most, if not all of his VOY designs were finalized and blueprinted after their MSDs had been drawn up, because Rick Sternbach likes to flesh out his ships, so it is no wonder we give precedence to the final designs. I give precedence to those Probert schematics over a rough internal deck graphic for the same reason, because those schematics should match the canonical exterior hull, even though there are inconsistencies which do not affect our understanding of the overall layout (meaning, there are 20 or so decks and most of them have windows). However, in this exceptional case, it was Doug Drexler who finalized and canonized the layout much later -- after the vague, undocumented model had been built -- so the argument falls apart.
2) To dismiss Doug Drexler's work even further than is normal for any MSD, by putting it on the level of a reused FJ schematic. This is where I can't follow the analogy, since all MSDs were drawn from scratch for a specific ship, while their accuracy depended on the amount of time and information available to the artist.
3) To show that the MSD is vastly inaccurate by speculating, taking other evidence at face value (there are at least five physical decks, the window must be one of those lights, because a hatch that might cover it cannot possibly be too small or flush to discern on the model...even though this didn't stop the escape pod hatches to appear in unexpected places..., there is an aft torpedo bay at the centerline -- proof?, crew size -- but what is the relationship between ship lengths and crew sizes?, turbolifts -- their relationship to the minimum size?, shuttlebay -- again, how does it set the minimum size?)
Your strategy:
1) To take Rick Sternbach's statement out of context -- as noted in this discussion already, most, if not all of his VOY designs were finalized and blueprinted after their MSDs had been drawn up, because Rick Sternbach likes to flesh out his ships, so it is no wonder we give precedence to the final designs. I give precedence to those Probert schematics over a rough internal deck graphic for the same reason, because those schematics should match the canonical exterior hull, even though there are inconsistencies which do not affect our understanding of the overall layout (meaning, there are 20 or so decks and most of them have windows). However, in this exceptional case, it was Doug Drexler who finalized and canonized the layout much later -- after the vague, undocumented model had been built -- so the argument falls apart.
2) To dismiss Doug Drexler's work even further than is normal for any MSD, by putting it on the level of a reused FJ schematic. This is where I can't follow the analogy, since all MSDs were drawn from scratch for a specific ship, while their accuracy depended on the amount of time and information available to the artist.
3) To show that the MSD is vastly inaccurate by speculating, taking other evidence at face value (there are at least five physical decks, the window must be one of those lights, because a hatch that might cover it cannot possibly be too small or flush to discern on the model...even though this didn't stop the escape pod hatches to appear in unexpected places..., there is an aft torpedo bay at the centerline -- proof?, crew size -- but what is the relationship between ship lengths and crew sizes?, turbolifts -- their relationship to the minimum size?, shuttlebay -- again, how does it set the minimum size?)
And in doing so, we seek to make it look as if the ship's DESIGNERS had no idea what they were doing.
Whatever. Go play with your drawings.
Similar threads
- Poll
