When was 947 feet established?

Incidentally -- viz. Shaw's "without seeing your work, why should I respect your talking big?" dig (a brutal paraphrase, and, as I said, QUITE deserved) -- I invite y'all to turn to my 3 "a tale of Khan" posts in Fan Fiction. I'm unseemly proud both of the story (split for post length limit strictures) and the "Trek heresies" set forth within. And welcome comments...here OR there.

IMHO, the decade-long fan fiction anthology series erred in buying not a one of my stories (though they did pay me the compliment of having me resubmit the next-to-last one...which this isn't). But for that, I'd be a Big Time Trek Author by now. Damnit.

 

Yeah, trying to put together all our assorted Trek tech visions seems like a quick trip to hypertension.

Still, could be fun.

 

Hell, I'd buy it! I love this stuff!

 

And, at this point in the thread, the only woman to post...

There's meaning in that somewhere.

 

I've got literally gigs of material, just on my own, that I've thought about doing as a lulu.com-issued book. Thing is, I'm not really sure how well it would go over. A lot of us with the same interest seem to grate on one-another pretty harshly at times (and not always about Trek), and I think I'm still on Shaw and Aridas's shit list... I'm not sure.

I actually think the issue these days wouldn't be Paramount or CBS (Certainly there have been a number of unauthorized Trek books over the years), but simply getting someone's vision to be the one 'in charge' for each product... and then have that product compete with the same type of material that's pretty much free on the internet? Tall order.

 

The problem with the "canon, on-screen" schematic with scale bar is that the Enterprise works out to about 970 feet, not 947 feet.

 

Chalk it up to pixel error from a slightly off screen and call it 'done'. But that's really one of those issues that I was mentioning. If I were, for instance, in 'charge' of a 'Jaynz Guide to the Enterprise", she would be 947' and 190,000MT DW just because that's somewhat realistic for what we see and the numbers are well established. It's a good starting point.

And then SOME people will think I just strangled their puppy for it.

 

We can't even agree on which way the bridge faces or where the antimatter is stored, so the prospects of anything of any use coming out of such a project are slim and none.

 

Ahem. Or even if the antimatter is stored or manufactured....

 

I have seen it suggested (an it adds up for me anyhow) that both of these shots represent a Hangar Deck below the actual Flight Deck and we're looking at a longer space from the door to that area with the crew lined up/walking towards the aft of the ship. The shuttle used the elevator to get up or down to/from the Flight Deck between camera cuts. This allows the Flight Deck (or Shuttlebay if you prefer) to be narrower than it'd have to be assuming that the shuttle was parked there and the distance we see is from the side of the Flight Deck looking across the space laterally.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

--Alex

 

^That makes the most sense to me, since the far wall in both shots is featureless, which the flight deck walls are not.

 

It also allows for the possibility that the flight deck doesn't always have to be pressurized.

 

You knew the job was dangeerous when you took it.

 

thought I was

 

[Luke Skywalker] I care. [/Luke]

 

Whatever. I don't know how big to the foot the Enterprise is. All I am saying is that is how I think the Enterprise would roughly compare to an aircraft carrier, since we know how big those are.

The Midway in San Diego is 972 feet. If the Enterprise is supposed about a 1000 feet, then that is how it would compare

The display wall on the Enterprise-D also supports this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28CVN-65%29

The CVN65 Enterprise carrier is 1,123 ft (342 m) , so the scale looks pretty close to me.