Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

[Vance]

^ a major problem with these threads is that no-one can have a sensible debate about anything to do with NuTrek without someone who dislikes the film sticking the boot in.

If you're going to use NuTrek as a measuring rod against all the other parts of Star Trek lore, then, yes, expect people who dislike the flim, or do not take the tech established within it as credible, to say something. It is not fair, or even intellectually honest, for a NuTrek fan to come here and say "everything in the past 40 years should be reworked to accommodate NuTrek, period, since it's the new canon and you all have to accept it."

On top of that, when the producer of the film is on record more than once, as saying that he deliberately ignored that stuff, and fans of it should read 'Nacelles Monthly' instead, you really cannot justify its use as a measuring rod in the first place.

Its not a comment on the quality of the movie, per se, just on the use of its tech. This is key, because WHICH forum on the BBS are we on again?

 

[ST-One]

On top of that, when the producer of the film is on record more than once, as saying that he deliberately ignored that stuff, and fans of it should read 'Nacelles Monthly' instead, you really cannot justify its use as a measuring rod in the first place.

Sarcasm. It's a difficult concept.


Or so it seems.

 

[Vance]

I'm not taking anything as a personal attack, despite your efforts.

I'm trying to help you. But, seriously, you're really not doing this to toot your own horn (which is what I objected to) when you go into other threads to do exactly that? Honestly?

Let me put it this simply to you: you screwed up your premise by blowing up technical drawings and then ignoring things like blur-lines, artificing, and so on. You also phrased your accomplishment in a way that said that people like myself, Shaw, Franz Joseph, Doug Drexler, et al, were just too lazy and stupid to get it right.

It had nothing to do with your inclusion of the NuTrek ships. That came later, and had little to do with me.

You didn't think to ask the 'powers that be' why the decisions we made in scaling the ships, or detailing them as such, were actually made. You didn't think to get your facts right at all before pronoucing "ALL LIES!" like there's this big conspiracy theory to have starship shrinkage.

And you certainly made it clear that you weren't going to accept criticism of your work. When Shaw, for instance, showed how he got all those sets to work, etc. you blew him off.

From you we've gotten: "Herecy against doctrine!" rants and feeble attempts at put-downs.

Please show me, exactly, in this thread, where I put forward any 'doctrine'? The only thing I said to that direction that was for Jaynz, I wouldn't include the NuTrek material since it would be a pain in the ass to include it. But, if I were to do a NuTrek Jaynz, I would probably ignore TOS.

And if the worst insult I laid was calling you arrogant in your initial post, and its hurt you this much, then I have to suggest you haven't been on the internet long. I've also insulted someone's seemingly extremely personal connection to NuTrek, but that wasn't you.

 

[SicOne]

All Trek fans who enjoy the ships and put some thought into the sizing issues can draw from many varying and equally valid sources and arguments and arrive at their own conclusions. I've had similar thoughts on these issues as well.

But at the end of the day, (1) most of us do enjoy discussing them civilly, comparing sources and asking people like Sternbach for the insider scoop whenever possible, and (2) Star Trek is entertainment designed to make money and they'll do whatever the hell they need to do to make that money and to hell with how ship size is perceived by a vast, underwhelming minority of fans.

Guys, c'mon. It's like arguing over dick size. No one really cares, and it doesn't affect your life unless you let it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Shaw got the sets to fit on his/Jefferies' diagram - but it's Drexler's inflated one that appeared on TV (and was used as the basis of the recent Haynes manual). That and the E-B diagram don't work at their official sizes. I actually planned to ask where the 23-deck figure for the TOS ship originated, but honestly forgot when you came along and took a guy messing around with PSP as a personal insult. I also admitted and aplogized for fucking up the Enterprise-E scaling and blur lines. I'll do the same now for MJ's orginal TMoST ones which were obviously meant only as a very rough guide.

Nowhere did I insinuate anyone was lazy or stupid - I merely pointed out where they all (intentionally and knowingly) fudged.

My original point was:

Why weren't the ship sizes corrected in the TNG-era manuals released - particularly since most of the TOS/movie tech concepts (as seen in The Star Fleet Technical Manual and Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise) were rectonned/ignored anyway?

 

[Vance]

My original point was:

Why weren't the ship sizes corrected in the TNG-era manuals released - particularly since most of the TOS/movie tech concepts (as seen in The Star Fleet Technical Manual and Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise) were rectonned/ignored anyway?

Again, you're assuming that with this post that you are right, and even the people who worked on the ships, models, sets, etc. were wrong and need to correct their data based on what you've assessed. You dismiss all that work, and time, based on nothing more than "Eh, here's my PSP blow up!"

Did you know the Tech Manual actually used props, stills, etc. from the show itself? That there were interviews and detailed explanations and it was all put into the hands of a licensed and experienced mechanical engineer? Did you know what Franz Joseph's goals in the book actually were? Did you also know that it WAS accepted canon up until Gene Roddenberry retconned it for TNG?

Did you know that the set-builders overrode Jefferies a few times after initial descriptions and were set, causing some incongruities? Or that the sets of the series were designed primarily to just FIT in the small studio that they had? Did you also know that these sets were heavily reused and redressed for other parts of the ship? (Going to have to wonder why the botany lab has a phaser bank control in it...)

How about that the shuttle-craft exterior and interior set were two completely different structures which in no way can be rectified? More than that, the interior set itself gets redone a couple of times and appears slightly different in the episodes we see it?

Don't even get me started on things like TAS, or the scaling errors of the Excelsior and Oberth, etc.. there's just too many to count.

At some point you have to say 'this is the best Hollywood could give us under the conditions that they had'. Coming in declaring 'I have discovered the canon, where all else has failed' is more than a little folly.

It's simply not possible at this point.

 

[Shaw]

KingDaniel, I'm a little fuzzy on your criteria for inclusion/exclusion of data here... so maybe you can help me understand where you are coming from on this.

Shaw got the sets to fit on his/Jefferies' diagram - but it's Drexler's inflated one that appeared on TV (and was used as the basis of the recent Haynes manual).

While Drexler is a nice guy... he never worked on TOS. So giving his ideas more weight than Jefferies (who designed the Enterprise) seems odd.

I can sort of understand the criteria of screen used, but the Drexler cutaway that you are using wasn't used in ENT the way it was later release to the public. This was what we saw on screen...

But by the same criteria you are applying to Drexler's work, wouldn't Franz Joseph's work (seen in TMP) be given more weight?

Neither Drexler or Joseph worked on TOS... but (obviously) Jefferies had, and using the same criteria as Drexler's diagram, wouldn't these screen used graphics by the designer of the Enterprise have the most weight...

... Specially considering that they were available to the public in TMoST the same month that the graphic appeared in TOS back in 1968.

click to enlarge​

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for this type of intellectual exercise. I'm just trying to understand why, given the criteria you've stated, you give more weight to Drexler than Jefferies. I adopted a nearly Jefferies-only criteria for my studies... but then again, I only study TOS. I'm just hoping for a clearer definition of the criteria you are using and how you are applying it.

 

[Saquist]

I love the way all the arguments end with "It's a bad film anyway! Wahhh!" as if your opinion somehow helps your argument. Take your bitching and point-by-point complaints to the STXI forum.

-The itemization makes my argument.
-It is proper writing etiquette to give a summary and conclusion.
-Sounds like someone has a problems with the opinion of others that differ from their own. How petulant.

TOS never explained how phasers, photon torpedoes or shields worked and it got along just fine. You don't need the underlying principles of something explained to you in order to see what it does and what the consequences for it's use are.

-An argument so weak it needs a hostage to get out of the room alive. How dastardly.
-phasers are a contrivance and never played a scientific role in Trek TOS beyond roasting rocks and stunning people unconscious. Get over it.
-Star Trek09's Red matter contrivance was inconsistent, It first opened a time portal, then destroyed vulcan and then destroyed the Narada instead of sending it back in time as it did originally after detonating ALL of the supply. Makes about as much sense as Jar Jar Binks calling for a vote to give the Chancellor Emergency Powers when the Senate couldn't decide to give him the Emergency Powers themselves.

You're roasting here kiddo.
You're in over your head.
You're burning and drowning at the same time...

Beyond condecending, you really need to pull your head out of your ass.

Try saying that in mirror next time you got the urge to tell someone to leave the thread, OH Master of Diplomacy.

This may blow your mind but it AIN'T ALL ABOUT YOU. People can have opinions even if you don't like them. Get a grip.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I should fix some popcorn...

 

[TIN_MAN]

The 23 decks for the TOS E was originally from "The Making Of Star Trek" I believe?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Vance: I knew all of that. Again, I never said anything about 'canon', nor was I expecting perfection. It's just that some of the discrepancies I found were more severe than I expected to find and I thought I'd share.

Shaw: I'm focused on Drexler's diagram because it's the latest, and they've had forever to get it right (although I must confess it's been awhile since I saw the episode and didn't realize the version on-screen had been "vaguefied"). If Matt Jefferies postulated a 20-deck Enterprise, and it fits like that, why did Franz Joseph, Doug Drexler and every licensed source squeeze in 23 decks, forcing compromises? Why isn't the original 20-deck design in all the manuals?

And, of course, how come 947' (or the various other ship sizes) is seemingly set in stone when so much Trek (seen, spoken and written) has been rewritten in the past 40+ years?

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'll have to get ahold of Drexler, but according to the thread on his blog, to the best of his recollection, that cross-section is based on the 947' figure.

As for that tube cathedral leading directly to the nacelles, to be perfectly honest, I'd argue that concept with Jefferies himself (respectfully, of course).

 

[Captain Robert April]

The 23 decks for the TOS E was originally from "The Making Of Star Trek" I believe?

If there is one thing we all should've learned by now is that while "The Making of Star Trek" is an invaluable resource on the intricacies of television production, and on the early history of the show, as an in-universe technical reference it leaves a lot to be desired. It's even a little dicey on info regarding the minatures; according to the book, the Enterprise model was fourteen feet long with a ten-foot diameter saucer. Both figures are waaaaay off, especially the saucer diameter.

 

[TIN_MAN]

^Yeah, yeah. I wasn't speaking to the books "authority", just answering KingDaniel's question.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

So 23 decks isn't actually from an episode? I was starting to wonder if it was the result of a 40-year-old "deck 29" style dialogue botch.

I'll have to get ahold of Drexler, but according to the thread on his blog, to the best of his recollection, that cross-section is based on the 947' figure.

That may be true of the original deck layout (the deck spacing's essentially the same as FJ's), but he detailed it (later on?) with mini rooms, doors, details and redshirts indicating comfortable 10' decks. Foul misdirection! It's a ship of Keensers!

Can I have a link to the thread, please?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Because I enjoy making more work for people, how different is the E-E scale if you compare the MSD to the Nemesis silhouette instead of the First Contact version?

I managed to totally miss this post, sorry!

The raised nacelles would only add a couple more metres. If I do another chart, I'll add it.

Also: Fantastic site!! I'm especially loving the pictures of the Enterprise-B/Lakota model.

 

[Shaw]

Shaw: I'm focused on Drexler's diagram because it's the latest, and they've had forever to get it right (although I must confess it's been awhile since I saw the episode and didn't realize the version on-screen had been "vaguefied"). If Matt Jefferies postulated a 20-deck Enterprise, and it fits like that, why did Franz Joseph, Doug Drexler and every licensed source squeeze in 23 decks, forcing compromises? Why isn't the original 20-deck design in all the manuals?

And, of course, how come 947' (or the various other ship sizes) is seemingly set in stone when so much Trek (seen, spoken and written) has been rewritten in the past 40+ years?

Who are this they you speak of and why give them any additional credit?

I lived through the 1970s when licensees of Trek didn't care about accuracy. Licensed products baring the "Star Trek" name that didn't resemble anything seen in Star Trek were all over the place. So someone having a license to use the name "Star Trek" carries very little weight with me. Research, investigation and data are things I consider important.

You asked about Franz Joseph... he didn't have access to anything beyond TMoST, and was working in isolation (the project was more of a gift for his daughter as I recall). It wasn't like he had access to information that no one else had... he had talent no one else had and put it to good use.

Drexler is pretty much in the same boat. If he doesn't know better, it isn't a crime (that I know of). You can't expect everyone to sift tons of raw data before putting out a graphic on the net.

As for the 947 foot number... I, personally, think it is an error. But then again, I don't do single measurement comparisons between things, so overall length doesn't hold any special place over any other measurement. Most people don't want to deal with 3, 5, 10 or 23 different dimensions, they want it simple... just one. But when you start doing an analysis of all the known dimensions of plans and models from TOS, you start to see that the Enterprise was closer to 940 feet in length, and that all the other numbers on the one diagram with "947" on it support an over all length of 940.

So, on that diagram either Jefferies made four errors (and got only one number right) or he made one error (and got four numbers right) ... I personally think there is only one error. It just happened to be on the one measurement that everyone fixates on.

But I'm not too worried about what other people want to believe... my goal is to collect accurate data for those who are interested. And I try to be as dispassionate about my data collection as possible so people will know they can trust what I'm putting out. I also try to make sure that people know when I'm applying my own fictional vision of things... but I've been avoiding sharing those types of things recently.

Again, I think this type of stuff is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I don't expect others to put the same type of constraints on their data mining that I do (after all, I spend most of my time digging for data... it is what I enjoy doing). And I enjoy seeing other people's take on these things. I was just curious how you arrived at your criteria.

 

[SicOne]

OK, let me ask a serious question that I'm virtually certain is going to cause some outrage in certain posters...are the various ship lengths given on Ex Astris Scientia pretty much considered to be accurate, or at least the best compromise between competing valid sources?

If not, what source do you use?

I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but I have a little file where I keep the ships broken down by class and I chart the various dimensions as given from various sources, whether they be tech manuals, websites (Ex Astris is my most used), Trekpedia, Starship Spotter, cutaway posters, etc. There's a fair amount of variation, but I've found it helpful when posting on Trek Tech to have that file handy.

 

[Vance]

You asked about Franz Joseph... he didn't have access to anything beyond TMoST, and was working in isolation (the project was more of a gift for his daughter as I recall). It wasn't like he had access to information that no one else had... he had talent no one else had and put it to good use.

Not entirely true. He had access to second-hand materials from his daughter, Karen, who was majorly big into the fandom along with Bjo. I don't know what all materials she was able to get from Lincoln Enterprises, but I know some things were used for the book.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Lincoln Enterprises didn't have a whole lot as far as resources go. Maybe copies of the same layouts that were in TMoST and some Mike McMaster blueprint sets and posters. Beyond that, we're talking grainy promotional stills and the AMT model available at the time.