StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Not much volume for deck 2 or 1, what's there?

It's not *that* small; remember that the bridge only takes up part of its deck's width. There's quite a bit of real estate available above it.

As for what's there - the TMP Enterprise has the officer's lounge in the bridge superstructure, so that might still be there. Perhaps an astronomy lab, with the dome housing telescopes or sensors?

Getting to it would be easy, the turbolift can easily go up another deck from the bridge. And there's always ladders or stairs...

It doesn't even have to be a livable deck. The dome could now house sensors, a la the globes on a Star Destroyer.

McC wrote:It doesn't even have to be a livable deck. The dome could now house sensors, a la the globes on a Star Destroyer.

Kind of my problem, if it is just ship systems, then why is it a deck? If it is a deck, what do you put into it and why so small a space?

Knife wrote:

McC wrote:It doesn't even have to be a livable deck. The dome could now house sensors, a la the globes on a Star Destroyer.

Kind of my problem, if it is just ship systems, then why is it a deck? If it is a deck, what do you put into it and why so small a space?

That was a simplified mockup. It doesn't have to be a deck, does it?

Knife wrote:

McC wrote:It doesn't even have to be a livable deck. The dome could now house sensors, a la the globes on a Star Destroyer.

Kind of my problem, if it is just ship systems, then why is it a deck? If it is a deck, what do you put into it and why so small a space?

This is why I left the dome as a "deck 0" - it's tall enough for a man to stand it, at the dead-centre, but it's useless as habitable space.

The decks between the dome and the bridge level, however, are easily big enough to hold usable space. They don't appear to be much smaller than the decks below the bridge on the TOS Enterprise.

Bounty wrote:

Knife wrote:

McC wrote:It doesn't even have to be a livable deck. The dome could now house sensors, a la the globes on a Star Destroyer.

Kind of my problem, if it is just ship systems, then why is it a deck? If it is a deck, what do you put into it and why so small a space?

This is why I left the dome as a "deck 0" - it's tall enough for a man to stand it, at the dead-centre, but it's useless as habitable space.

The decks between the dome and the bridge level, however, are easily big enough to hold usable space. They don't appear to be much smaller than the decks below the bridge on the TOS Enterprise.

That explains why I thought that all of your deck numbers were off by one.

Ah, I see you added numbers, nice.

Excellent work Bounty. It looks like we will be getting a Technical Manual after all - hopefully it will clear up the scaling silliness the fandom is having right now.

Yeah, clear it up NEXT YEAR. If they go for the christmas market, we could be arguing the same points for another fifteen months!

Cool. I hope it has a little bit if not just a couple side shots of the other ships featured in the show, plus the 'starbase' thing.

I hope they manage something along the lines of the old Franz Joseph TM, with a page devoted to each of the other ships.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... t.htm#size

Behold, a truly sad piece of fan delusion.

Bounty wrote:http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... t.htm#size

Behold, a truly sad piece of fan delusion.

I don't get why people are offended with the new size. I personally like it. To me this new size strikes me as a ship that is capable of conducting and running operations in an area which is something you expect from a flagship. The TOS Enterprise never made me think that it could take on a command ship role...but was it even considered to be the flagship in TOS? I don't recall...

Wow, I would never have thought Schneider would descend to the level of Darkstar, but between his rantings on how the people behind the scenes don't have the right to tell us what size the new Enterprise is, acknowledging the problems with a 300m length but then dismissing them without trying to explain them, and him less than subtly branding Ryan Church "a lousy designer" and a "plagiarist" he's managed to do exactly that.

His bitches are dumb. We know that the Federation is capable of building things larger than 300m, hence the various star bases and other orbital structures. It's not a 'we can't build that big' type thing.

Well you do have to question exactly why they didn't... but in any case sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "La, la, la, la, nothing's changed, nothing's changed, the Enterprise is 300m long, Abrams is wrong" is just ridiculous.

Kamakazie Sith wrote:I don't get why people are offended with the new size. I personally like it. To me this new size strikes me as a ship that is capable of conducting and running operations in an area which is something you expect from a flagship. The TOS Enterprise never made me think that it could take on a command ship role...but was it even considered to be the flagship in TOS? I don't recall...

There was nothing wrong with the size of the old ship. It was a very large ship on the scale of modern seagoing warships, after all. It's just that so many other sci-fi series have come out with much bigger ships since then, and the producers apparently felt a case of penis envy.

Bounty wrote:http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... t.htm#size

Behold, a truly sad piece of fan delusion.

That's... pathetic. With the legitimate flaws in this movie, he's whining about how the new ship doesn't fit his ideals of starship design. He really could use a prescription for sedatives.

As for Bernd, his mental machinations are somewhat interesting: he is treating many of the visuals of the new film as if they are mere outliers, similar to a non-repeating FX mistake in one of the TV shows. He is presumably doing this because it is just one movie, and he is apparently assuming that sequels will fix everything. It's interesting that he said he would not tilt at windmills over this, because this sure looks like a windmill to me. One of his outliers is the fact that many shuttles can be stacked in the Enterprise's shuttle bay!

How can that be regarded as an FX error? That was clearly very deliberate. Overall, the likelihood that this is a one-off outlier is vanishingly small, to say the least. After all, the Kelvin launched large numbers of shuttles, and it was a lesser vessel when compared to the Enterprise.

The other interesting thing he does is to introduce the original continuity as parallel evidence, thus clearly refusing to accept that this is a series reboot. So he argues that many things are implausible because they contradict the original continuity. A lot of his arguments rely on comparison to the relative sizes of ship components from the old TV shows, as if they should be considered at all.

He even assumes that the ratio of the number of windows to the ship's length should be the same from the old shows to the new movie; why? If anything, the old versions had far too much window space; this is a warship, not a sight-seeing ferry. He also makes the point that a 700m warship is even more implausible to build on the ground than a 300m warship, but again, that treats the old continuity as if it is relevant. Realistically, both sizes are absurd and wasteful to build on the ground, as discussed elsewhere.

In short, his arguments rest upon two main pillars:

1) He treats visuals in the movie as outliers wherever they contradict a 300m length, even if they are very clearly deliberate decisions rather than mere errors.

2) He treats this movie as just another addition to the Star Trek continuity, and one which should therefore be somewhat consistent with that continuity.

Neither of these assumptions is justifiable in my view, but if you adopt them, then you can see how he might arrive at his conclusions. Of course, there's no word on how he will react when subsequent films come out with new visuals confirming the larger size, which is almost certainly going to happen.

DaveJB wrote:Well you do have to question exactly why they didn't... but in any case sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "La, la, la, la, nothing's changed, nothing's changed, the Enterprise is 300m long, Abrams is wrong" is just ridiculous.

What I fond most baffling is that he freely admits the detailing doesn't work at 300 meters, which pretty damn well proves it was designed at that size - and then turns around and ignores it because of some phantom conspiracy between the producers and Church!

If he doesn't like the upscaling, fine - to each his own. If he wants to write an essay about how much he doesn't like the upscaling, again, fine by me. But acknowledging all the evidence for the new size and refusing it in the same paragraph? That's a special sort of deluded right there.

Bounty wrote:

DaveJB wrote:Well you do have to question exactly why they didn't... but in any case sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "La, la, la, la, nothing's changed, nothing's changed, the Enterprise is 300m long, Abrams is wrong" is just ridiculous.

What I fond most baffling is that he freely admits the detailing doesn't work at 300 meters, which pretty damn well proves it was designed at that size - and then turns around and ignores it because of some phantom conspiracy between the producers and Church!

If he doesn't like the upscaling, fine - to each his own. If he wants to write an essay about how much he doesn't like the upscaling, again, fine by me. But acknowledging all the evidence for the new size and refusing it in the same paragraph? That's a special sort of deluded right there.

He's not entirely "acknowledging" it; he's dismissing it as visual effects mistakes, even though it is clearly deliberate. It is indeed reminiscent of some of RSA's arguments, although I would not say that Bernd has actually sunk to RSA's level. He's far more intelligent than RSA, and has actually gone to school, unlike RSA. He's just making some unwarranted assumptions, probably for emotional reasons.

That looks just about right to me. Starfleet has never been described as having "capital ships" like ISDs or Battlestars, but in comparison to those 1701 looks roughly cruiser sized.

Of, course, there is an astronomical difference in habitable space, but 1701 isn't intended to carry soldiers or mount long term operations in one place.

On Bernd's forums, the sub-forum for discussing the new movie is labeled: "Discuss how JJ Abrams raped your childhood."

Actually the whole subtitle is:

Discuss how JJ Abrams raped your childhood, and randomly declare things non-canon.

I think it was a jab by one of the moderators at exactly the kind of beheviour Bernd displayed.

Darth Wong wrote: On Bernd's forums, the sub-forum for discussing the new movie is labeled: "Discuss how JJ Abrams raped your childhood."

That's not Bernd's forum it's simply one he happens to be an administrator on. If it were his, I'd be banned. And the description is tounge in cheek put there by a sane admin.