Starship Size Argument™ thread

[F. King Daniel]

Here's the link to the thread where I posted the set plan: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=219844

Here is the site I got it from. Not a fan effort, the real deal: http://www.harryottodesign.com/gallery.html

 

[Killerprise]

Thats a set diagram! From the makers of the movie. Didn't you click the link I gave you? There are no doors at the front of the bridge.

I got confused, sue me. I'll download the picture and superimpose it to see if it fits the way I think it does.

Oh I know where the atrium window is!!!!!! It's under those windows behind the bridge. Although the floor plans are a bit vague since that would mean the rear corridor has a decline so that they can lead to the lower decks. I always wondered what was inside those windows that's in the same place as Refit 1701's conference room.

It seems the USS Vengeance may actually be larger than we thought. It's 2.5x the Enterprise's size in this graphic:
[ IMG]http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/vengeance_graphic.jpg[/ IMG]

And here's the ever-changing bridge window. It seems the taller, narrower veraion seen when the Enterprise is on the Klingon border and again at the very end correctly matches the window on the set (which has a definite height of 8', I guesstimated a width of 25'):
[ IMG]http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/bridge_window_change.jpg[/ IMG]
Forgive the shitty quality of the pics, they're from YouTube clips. Enterprise pic from www.cygnus-x1.net.

You took the youtube image from prometheus' video, lol I've watched those dozens of times, it's kind of funny how the nacelles look normal size from the front in that shot. That first person vs ship image was a joke, I remember seeing that for the first time and was like "hey the window isn't THAT small".

Has anyone else noticed that the floor plan diagram make it look like sickbay and the transporter room are at the same height with the bridge? They are both below the bridge in the saucer section just like in the original show and TNG. There has to be stairs that just aren't show in the diagram. It's also weird how when the neck and secondary hull got hit when Enterprise arrived at Vulcan that the sickbay exploded. I'm working on superimposing the diagram. This will take a while.

Check this image out from the blu-ray, 948' times two equals 1896'

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YENremF4m.../Star+Trek+Consititution+class+comparison.jpg

This was a pain in the ass, lol. As you can see the bridge size is about 99% spot on, I noticed where the bridge window was it's the blueish light slot in the front of the dome.

http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a510/SubaruBRZ/Enterprisetopwithbridge_zps781dea3e.jpg

 

[BillJ]

P.S. I came here to have fun and do some debating not get harassed so kindly back off and refrain from responding to every one of my posts like a stalker. I still can't believe I've attracted a stalker that fast.

So you want to be able to post misinformation without being challenged? You came to the wrong tavern.

 

[Gepard]

I want Scotty to stare into the camera during the next film and say "This is a 700 meter-long starship, laddie."

 

[BillJ]

I want Scotty to stare into the camera during the next film and say "This is a 700 meter-long starship, laddie."

It sure would solve much of the shit about the size.

 

[Killerprise]

P.S. I came here to have fun and do some debating not get harassed so kindly back off and refrain from responding to every one of my posts like a stalker. I still can't believe I've attracted a stalker that fast.

So you want to be able to post misinformation without being challenged? You came to the wrong tavern.

Please get back on topic.

 

[BillJ]

P.S. I came here to have fun and do some debating not get harassed so kindly back off and refrain from responding to every one of my posts like a stalker. I still can't believe I've attracted a stalker that fast.

So you want to be able to post misinformation without being challenged? You came to the wrong tavern.

Please get back on topic.

Since you are not a moderator, you have no authority to tell me to do anything of the kind.

 

[Killerprise]

I want Scotty to stare into the camera during the next film and say "This is a 700 meter-long starship, laddie."

That will never happen. They would then have to produce blueprints showing that information, that would also never happen. This isn't a version Star Trek like the original and TNG that supports claims with technical manuals or blueprints. This is popcorn Trek, all action no technical aspect.

 

[Killerprise]

So you want to be able to post misinformation without being challenged? You came to the wrong tavern.

Please get back on topic.

Since you are not a moderator, you have no authority to tell me to do anything of the kind.

"Please" denotes a request, not an order.

 

[BillJ]

That will never happen. They would then have to produce blueprints showing that information, that would also never happen. This isn't a version Star Trek like the original and TNG that supports claims with technical manuals or blueprints. This is popcorn Trek, all action no technical aspect.

You do realize much of the work of making things fit was done by licensed material and the fans? Do you really think that they did complete blueprints of the Enterprise back in 1966?

And people are still arguing the details fifty-years later.

 

[SeerSGB]

That will never happen. They would then have to produce blueprints showing that information, that would also never happen. This isn't a version Star Trek like the original and TNG that supports claims with technical manuals or blueprints. This is popcorn Trek, all action no technical aspect.

You do realize much of the work of making things fit was done by licensed material and the fans? Do you really think that they did complete blueprints of the Enterprise back in 1966?

And people are still arguing the details fifty-years later.

Hold the fuck up: He won't take the word of the production team--the people that put the thing on the screen. But he'll favor fanon sites like Ex Sceintia and licensed works over the OFFICIAL word?

The hell?

Tell ya' what, Killer', go into the TOS forum and start a thread on how accurate the Franz Joseph deck plans are or how accurate Shane Johnson's work is. Then you'll see: License products are never "right".

 

[BillJ]

I'm curious: did Matt Jefferies ever give us the length of the TOS Enterprise or did we get that from fan sources and licensed material?

 

[SeerSGB]

I'm curious: did Matt Jefferies ever give us the length of the TOS Enterprise or did we get that from fan sources and licensed material?

IRC, there's a line drawing in "Making of Star Trek" that compares the size of the Enterprise against an aircraft carrier. And there's a screen in "Day Of The Dove" showing the Enterprise scaled against a D-7, but I don't recall if it was labeled with sizes.

Edit: I was wrong. It's "Enterprise Incident", and it's labeled with a scale.

 

[Killerprise]

I'm curious: did Matt Jefferies ever give us the length of the TOS Enterprise or did we get that from fan sources and licensed material?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Fil...01_finalized_plan_views_by_Matt_Jefferies.jpg

 

[BillJ]

I'm curious: did Matt Jefferies ever give us the length of the TOS Enterprise or did we get that from fan sources and licensed material?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Fil...01_finalized_plan_views_by_Matt_Jefferies.jpg

So I can take it that you take that 289 meter length as gospel? Because if you do, why won't you accept the size of the new version since it comes straight from those who put it together?

I also know that there has been debate about whether the sets we see could fit inside the dimensions that Jefferies gave for the Enterprise.

 

[M'Sharak]

Thats a set diagram! From the makers of the movie. Didn't you click the link I gave you? There are no doors at the front of the bridge.

I got confused, sue me. I'll download the picture and superimpose it to see if it fits the way I think it does.

That's one...

Oh I know where the atrium window is!!!!!! It's under those windows behind the bridge. Although the floor plans are a bit vague since that would mean the rear corridor has a decline so that they can lead to the lower decks. I always wondered what was inside those windows that's in the same place as Refit 1701's conference room.

two...

It seems the USS Vengeance may actually be larger than we thought. It's 2.5x the Enterprise's size in this graphic:
[ IMG]http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/vengeance_graphic.jpg[/ IMG]

And here's the ever-changing bridge window. It seems the taller, narrower veraion seen when the Enterprise is on the Klingon border and again at the very end correctly matches the window on the set (which has a definite height of 8', I guesstimated a width of 25'):
[ IMG]http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/bridge_window_change.jpg[/ IMG]
Forgive the shitty quality of the pics, they're from YouTube clips. Enterprise pic from www.cygnus-x1.net.

You took the youtube image from prometheus' video, lol I've watched those dozens of times, it's kind of funny how the nacelles look normal size from the front in that shot. That first person vs ship image was a joke, I remember seeing that for the first time and was like "hey the window isn't THAT small".

three...

Has anyone else noticed that the floor plan diagram make it look like sickbay and the transporter room are at the same height with the bridge? They are both below the bridge in the saucer section just like in the original show and TNG. There has to be stairs that just aren't show in the diagram. It's also weird how when the neck and secondary hull got hit when Enterprise arrived at Vulcan that the sickbay exploded. I'm working on superimposing the diagram. This will take a while.

four...

Check this image out from the blu-ray, 948' times two equals 1896'

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YENremF4m.../Star+Trek+Consititution+class+comparison.jpg

five...

This was a pain in the ass, lol. As you can see the bridge size is about 99% spot on, I noticed where the bridge window was it's the blueish light slot in the front of the dome.

http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a510/SubaruBRZ/Enterprisetopwithbridge_zps781dea3e.jpg

six posts in a row.

The FAQ recommends that you make no more than two consecutive posts in a given thread. If you wish to reply to several posts at the same time, you'll want to make use of the Multi-Quote function [

] which allows you to select several posts and reply to them all in a single post.

I will combine these for you.

Also: any pics you post as embedded images should be hosted on web space or an image-hosting account registered to you rather than hotlinked from websites belonging to others. That's in the FAQ, too.

I will fix these for you, as well.

 

[SeerSGB]

I'm curious: did Matt Jefferies ever give us the length of the TOS Enterprise or did we get that from fan sources and licensed material?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Fil...01_finalized_plan_views_by_Matt_Jefferies.jpg

So I can take it that you take that 289 meter length as gospel? Because if you do, why won't you accept the size of the new version since it comes straight from those who put it together?

I also know that there has been debate about whether the sets we see could fit inside the dimensions that Jefferies gave for the Enterprise.

Hell look at the refit Enterprise: The shuttlebay is huge. Through the whole of TMP we're hit with the massive sale of the refit Enterprise. 1701-A rolls around, same class, same size, and suddenly it's much smaller and just enough room for two shuttles side by side; STVI she's gotten even smaller and crew quarters are tiny. Yet the "official" size never changes, we're to believe that somehow the 1701 crammed a lot more into her than her sister (minds out of the gutters guys and gals).

Kick me in the shin for saying, but the (nu)1701 is a bit more consistent in how it's portray on the screen. She's a big fucking ship, and she's still not the biggest kid on the block in the Abramsverse.

 

[Killerprise]

I'm curious: did Matt Jefferies ever give us the length of the TOS Enterprise or did we get that from fan sources and licensed material?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Fil...01_finalized_plan_views_by_Matt_Jefferies.jpg

So I can take it that you take that 289 meter length as gospel? Because if you do, why won't you accept the size of the new version since it comes straight from those who put it together?

I also know that there has been debate about whether the sets we see could fit inside the dimensions that Jefferies gave for the Enterprise.

I would have accepted the 725 meter length if they had accurately scaled the ship to reflect that and included blueprints but unfortunately it isn't accurately scaled and there are no blueprints so their empty claims are just that. As for the 289m length as gospel, I haven't been given reason to doubt 289 meters, if someone wants to come up with a hyper accurate length for the TOS Enterprise go for it but the chances of that are slim to none.

 

[BillJ]

I would have accepted the 725 meter length if they had accurately scaled the ship to reflect that and included blueprints but unfortunately it isn't accurately scaled and there are no blueprints so their empty claims are just that. As for the 289m length as gospel, I haven't been given reason to doubt 289 meters, if someone wants to come up with a hyper accurate length for the TOS Enterprise go for it but the chances of that are slim to none.

Your argument kinda falls apart if you have no problem with one being inaccurately scaled.

 

[M'Sharak]

P.S. I came here to have fun and do some debating not get harassed so kindly back off and refrain from responding to every one of my posts like a stalker. I still can't believe I've attracted a stalker that fast.

So you want to be able to post misinformation without being challenged? You came to the wrong tavern.

Please get back on topic.

Since you are not a moderator, you have no authority to tell me to do anything of the kind.

"Please" denotes a request, not an order.

Would have been better not to have made the "stalker" accusation in the first place, wouldn't it? Telling someone else to get back on topic after you made the off-topic diversion yourself is ... well, not very credible, for one thing.

And not your call to make, for another.

I think, Killerprise, that you really ought to concentrate first and foremost on looking after your own post content; that's been showing signs of badly needing the attention.

And now, back to the topic of starship size, if everyone will be so kind?