Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

[Vance]

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.

I know there were a few other odds and ends from the series that made it to the book (this was after the first run of blueprints sold, remember), but I have no idea what was left of that. I -think- he got some shots of the set mini as well, which is what a lot of the diagrams was based on.

Either way, though, it's absolutely amazing what he was able to accomplish, by hand, with what resources he DID have available.

 

[Saquist]

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.

Some of them I agree with others I don't.
I agree (despite the bridge) Excelsior is 467 meters.
I don't agree the Defiant is 120meters It has to be 170-200.

Lets say most of them are pretty accurate unless we have to make judgment calls.

 

[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.

I know there were a few other odds and ends from the series that made it to the book (this was after the first run of blueprints sold, remember), but I have no idea what was left of that. I -think- he got some shots of the set mini as well, which is what a lot of the diagrams was based on.

Either way, though, it's absolutely amazing what he was able to accomplish, by hand, with what resources he DID have available.

Jefferies didn't even remember he had that scale model of the soundstage until they were putting together the "Star Trek Sketchbook" some years ago. FJ based his layouts on the Stage 9 drawing and the descriptions that were in TMoST.

 

[TIN_MAN]

^Well, I suppose it's possible MJ had some Photos of the mini set to share, even if he had forgotten, at the time, as to the whereabouts of the actual item?

But it does seem that FJ's primary source was the floor plan in TMOST. It's even possible to trace some of FJ's minor mistakes to that source (such as the omission of the decompression chamber in sickbay).

 

[Vance]

But it does seem that FJ's primary source was the floor plan in TMOST. It's even possible to trace some of FJ's minor mistakes to that source (such as the omission of the decompression chamber in sickbay).

Well, that wasn't an original set either, so it doesn't prove either here nor there. And, it's also really hard to say what was still around from 1969-1973 that disappeared before 1979. It's possible that MJ had the mini set then, and FJ did indeed see it.. but I've got no idea. I just don't want to dismiss it outright as a possibility.

 

[Captain Robert April]

My understanding is that the miniature was buried in Jefferies' garage, and it wasn't until they started digging through all the boxes of drawings that it was unearthed.

 

[Captain Robert April]

My understanding is that the miniature was buried in Jefferies' garage, and it wasn't until they started digging through all the boxes of drawings for the "Star Trek Sketchbook" that it was unearthed.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Yeah, that's my understanding as well, but there's a lotta years between the end of TOS and reasearch for the sketchbook, so who knows? plenty of time for things to be buried and resurface, only to be buried and forgotten again?

By the way, didn't FJ meet MJ and they got along famously due to a mutual love of airplanes, or am I thinking of someone else?

 

[TIN_MAN]

Hah, must be somethin wrong with the system???

 

[Unicron]

I hope we're not caught in some temporal loop.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

W3ll if the numb3r thr33 starts showing up 3xc3ssivl3y in our posts, th3n w3 should d3finitl3y tak3 it as a sign.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It is not logical if the ship resembles the TMP redesign, right down to window spacing.

Which it doesn't. Not even close.

I'm still not sure if the ship has 20-odd huge decks or 30-odd regular decks, and I should be.

Probably a mix of both, depending on what part of the ship you're in.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's one thing that always bothers me about threads like this (ignoring the obvious tone set at the beginning). Of course the sets, models, etc. won't line up. They were never built with the "reality" in mind - they were built as props for a television show or a movie! The fact that Star Trek even came close is a testament to those who have worked on the franchise.

True as that is, what's with all the vitriol directed at Abrams et al for "technical inconsistency" with the TOS universe? There's a parade of people who keep complaining about how "They ditched established canon just so because they wanted it to look cool!" and saying it like it's a bad thing.

There are a number of factors.

1) Previous Star Trek productions at least tried to be reasonably consistent. No, they weren't always successful, but at least there was an effort. With JJ, not only was there not an effort made, it seems that when an effort was made (coughcoughGeofferyMandelcoughcough), the person in question was immediately escorted off the studio lot. That's beyond not caring. That's showing an active disdain for anyone who's actually paying attention.

There's a big leap from "I read on a blog somewhere that some guy was fired for doing size comparisons of the old Enterprise" to "They showed active disdain for anyone who's actually paying attention." In fact, it's a pretty BIG damn leap when you consider that to this day we have only that one no-longer-existent (and in tone, sarcastic) blog post as a reference.

For all we know, Mandel was fired for squeezing Zoe Saldana's ample nacelles.

2) Trying to reconcile one side of the shop, where at least some effort was made to be consistent, with the other side, where wild inconsistencies appear to have been actively sought and encouraged, is on par with trying to reconcile the X-Men with Tom & Jerry.

Which is a big leap from a big leap and incomprehensible to me. It's like "I heard a rumor that you fired a guy because he said nice things about his homosexual friend... so how come you hate gay people?"

 

[Tomalak]

So it's pretty obvious the new 2009 Enterprise was designed smaller, then scaled up to fit the sets and the shuttle bay scene. I can live with that fine. Is it really any different to the original Enterprise being scaled up to fit the bridge set into the new smaller dome? Otherwise The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone before have to take place on a totally different ship.

Going back to the original poster's point, which I believe was asking if there's any reason to stick to dogmatic established sizes (which is what Bernd has done) when we know interior sets and other evidence shows it to be impossible. I don't have a problem really deciding in the ST09 continuity, ships are bigger. The important thing is that they are internally relatively consistent, with the huge Kevlin and other Starfleet ships, and indeed the Narada.

It's a parallel universe where Kirk looks like Chris Pine instead of William Shatner. Everyone else looks totally different, apart from Nimoy from "our" universe. Surely splitting hairs over some vfx goofs whilst ignoring this is insane!

 

[Gepard]

Everyone else looks totally different, apart from Nimoy from "our" universe. Surely splitting hairs over some vfx goofs whilst ignoring this is insane!

This is Trekkies we're talking about, though. As a casual perusal of the Tech, Art and Trek XI fora can tell you, though the franchise is supposed to be about the "Human Adventure," for many fans, hypothetical nonsense tech has become more important than people.

 

[Sector 7]

...though the franchise is supposed to be about the "Human Adventure," for many fans, hypothetical nonsense tech has become more important than people.

This could be the new motto for TrekBBS!

 

[Unicron]

I support this notion.

 

[Albertus]

... though the franchise is supposed to be about the "Human Adventure," for many fans, hypothetical nonsense tech has become more important than people.

Is it any more "hypothetical nonsense" than asking why Picard (a non-existent person) is supposed to be French but speaks with a very English accent?

Some people can get very vexed when storylines and characters/races do not fit with Canon, so why can't people get miffed when the Tech doesn't fit together properly?

After all, the USS Enterprise is as much a character in Star Trek as the "carbon units" are. IMHO

 

[TIN_MAN]

And you can't have the "Human Adventure" that Trek portrays, without the tech!!!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

... though the franchise is supposed to be about the "Human Adventure," for many fans, hypothetical nonsense tech has become more important than people.

Is it any more "hypothetical nonsense" than asking why Picard (a non-existent person) is supposed to be French but speaks with a very English accent?

Some people can get very vexed when storylines and characters/races do not fit with Canon, so why can't people get miffed when the Tech doesn't fit together properly?

After all, the USS Enterprise is as much a character in Star Trek as the "carbon units" are. IMHO

Somewhat true, but when the Enterprise is the ONLY character that has any development, the result is usually a pretty crappy show.