Career Officer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 544
# 41
01-17-2013, 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordagamemnonb5 View Post
A serious question regarding ship sizes because I haven't seen every episode of Trek.


Have any of the ships' sizes been stated on screen?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
In a word, no.
Forgive my ignorance since I haven't really digested the rest of the thread; by what basis is the other guy using to determine what is canon and what isn't?

Kind of reminds me of a discussions on a Bridge Commander forum regarding whether or not the Akira had rear torpedo tubes or if the Ambassador had any torpedo tubes at all. In cases like that I must defer to the designers.

Now, IMHO, some things should be ignored; like the Enterprise-D firing phasers from it's torpedo tube, and Star Trek V
Most JJ Trek hate = IDIC fail.
Quote:
Most who don't like the new Star Trek either didn't like TOS, don't remember TOS, or didn't see TOS
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 42
01-17-2013, 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordagamemnonb5 View Post
Forgive my ignorance since I haven't really digested the rest of the thread; by what basis is the other guy using to determine what is canon and what isn't?
As best I can tell, the STO ship size, and a (in my opinion extremely flawed) mathematical progression based on the relative size of one window to the ship's saucer size. The fact that it's labeled as an Escort by STO may be playing a role, but that hasn't been outright stated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordagamemnonb5 View Post
Kind of reminds me of a discussions on a Bridge Commander forum regarding whether or not the Akira had rear torpedo tubes or if the Ambassador had any torpedo tubes at all. In cases like that I must defer to the designers.
Well, the Akira had 10 tubes in the weapons pod. I doubt all of them were pointing forward, especially with the five forward mounted hull launchers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordagamemnonb5 View Post
Now, IMHO, some things should be ignored; like the Enterprise-D firing phasers from it's torpedo tube, and Star Trek V
To be fair, Ent-D firing from the torp tube was both an admitted mistake, and in one of the best TNG episodes, so I think they can be forgiven.

Last edited by stirling191; 01-17-2013 at 06:24 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 544
# 43
01-17-2013, 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
To be fair, Ent-D firing from the torp tube was both an admitted mistake, and in one of the best TNG episodes, so I think they can be forgiven.
Darmok and Jalad, through the torpedo tube.

Sorry, couldn't resist.
Most JJ Trek hate = IDIC fail.
Quote:
Most who don't like the new Star Trek either didn't like TOS, don't remember TOS, or didn't see TOS

Last edited by lordagamemnonb5; 01-17-2013 at 06:43 PM.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 130
# 44
01-17-2013, 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Well, the Akira had 10 tubes in the weapons pod. I doubt all of them were pointing forward, especially with the five forward mounted hull launchers.
.
Two torpedo ports each Port and Starboard on saucer.....
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 45
01-17-2013, 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexhurlbut View Post
Two torpedo ports each Port and Starboard on saucer.....
That's still forward-ish right?

Seriously though, I do stand in error on that one. Going back to Jaeger's post-mortem and concept art you can clearly see the broadside mounted launchers. And half a dozen aft-quarter pointing launchers on the weapon's pod to boot.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 867
# 46
01-17-2013, 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
You clearly didn't read the Ex Astris piece. They did an incredibly thorough job (much better than I could do in a few minutes for a forum disagreement) of running through every on screen appearance of the Akira, through every variable range of the ships dimensions, and list all known production sizes, technical specs and appearance angles. They even quibble a bit about window size.

None of which changes the conclusion that the listed technical specifications are at worst plausible, and at best accurate for the vessel. Wanting it to be otherwise doesn't make it so, especially in the face of compelling evidence.
Look, I respect the fact that you have a different opinion, but at this point you are just, once again, restating what you already stated in your previous posts.

I did read your webpage and nowhere in it does it give an adequate explanation as two why the windows would be 30-50 feet long. I can only think of two possible explanations:

1) The ship was intended to be 400-500 meters length, but they made a mistake when scaling the windows on the canonical model.

2) The ship is in the 150-300 meter range.

Now, since the only canonical reference to the size of the ship is the model which appeared on screen, I reject premise (1), the reason being, even if it is true, the ship design is now part of canon and they never corrected it in later appearances.

Now, I respect that you believe that the canon size is 400 - 500 meters and that the ship has windows that are 3 or more stories height in length, but I do not find that plausible at all. Unless you have a good explanation as to why the ship would have such large windows, I see little point in continuing this conversation.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 867
# 47
01-17-2013, 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordagamemnonb5 View Post
Forgive my ignorance since I haven't really digested the rest of the thread; by what basis is the other guy using to determine what is canon and what isn't?

It is kind of like a fundamentalist, literalistic interpretation of the bible. The only source of Gene's holy word is what appeared on screen. If it appeared on screen, it is the absolute truth, even the parts that conflict with the other parts. If it appeared in a book, a magazine, a script, or on the cutting room floor, it is not the word of Gene.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 184
# 48
01-17-2013, 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalspock View Post
It is kind of like a fundamentalist, literalistic interpretation of the bible. The only source of Gene's holy word is what appeared on screen. If it appeared on screen, it is the absolute truth, even the parts that conflict with the other parts. If it appeared in a book, a magazine, a script, or on the cutting room floor, it is not the word of Gene.
Following that analogy- I like to think of official content that was outside the films/TV series as being the 'Apocrypha' of the Star Trek world. It's all those things that the super hard core nerds like to discount whenever it doesn't suit their own mental image of how something in Trek is supposed to work, but that really do deserve consideration.
Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 482
# 49
01-17-2013, 08:57 PM
Another good way to make them rage is to make the Steamrunner capable to launch shuttles via what was suppose to be the impulse engines.
Career Officer
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 52
# 50
01-17-2013, 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tatyanasergei View Post
Following that analogy- I like to think of official content that was outside the films/TV series as being the 'Apocrypha' of the Star Trek world. It's all those things that the super hard core nerds like to discount whenever it doesn't suit their own mental image of how something in Trek is supposed to work, but that really do deserve consideration.
My view is stricter than this, where it excluded VOY and DS9, yet I would include the content of technical manuals.
-- Vice Admiral's log, stardate 57134.2
... I began to panic and asked my human companion of the meaning of toon. He replied that it was something that was not real. I protested to him that I was walking and running and killing. What did he mean that I was not real? He replied that everyone knew the universe was a computer simulation. Occasionally, he had to accompany another toon too.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:58 PM.