• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Discovery Size Argument™ thread

Explain please
I enjoy your posts because you put thought behind them and aren’t a Discovery schill.
What is there to explain? It was never called a capital ship in canon.

Now it was never not called a capital ship, so really it's in limbo.

The Connie in DSC is the 3rd largest ship in Starfleet so far, so I really wouldn't call it small.

The Crossfield and Shepard are the only ones bigger, but for both of them it is because of the nacelles.
 
What is there to explain? It was never called a capital ship in canon.

Now it was never not called a capital ship, so really it's in limbo.

The Connie in DSC is the 3rd largest ship in Starfleet so far, so I really wouldn't call it small.

The Crossfield and Shepard are the only ones bigger, but for both of them it is because of the nacelles.

Not according to that poster chart you shared. If you go by length perhaps you are correct. But by internal volume it’s decidedly on the small end.
 
Oh you have spoken it must be fact.
The facts:

  • Nothing was said about the Connie being "grand" or "luxurious" nor even "top of the line" (none of which would need to equate to "big" anyway) in any episode of DSC. Burnham suggested in "Lethe" (DSC) that getting posted to one might be advantageous in putting Cadet Tilly on an accelerated track to command.
  • There is evidence to support the Connie being roughly the same size in both DSC and TOS.
  • The Connie is not "the smallest ship in the fleet" in either.
  • DSC is not a reboot.

I'm learning to enjoy these Size Arguments™ after all!:techman:

-MMoM:D
 
It is a bit weird that they enlarge the Connie so it wouldn't look so small next to DSC ships, but still design many classes of ships which are considerably bigger than it.
 
It is a bit weird that they enlarge the Connie so it wouldn't look so small next to DSC ships, but still design many classes of ships which are considerably bigger than it.
How many times does it have to be pointed out that the TOS shuttlebay shots and Drexler's cutaway from "In A Mirror, Darkly" (ENT) both already suggested a very similar size?

(Apparently, at least one more time.)

-MMoM:D
 
How many times does it have to be pointed out that the TOS shuttlebay shots and Drexler's cutaway from "In A Mirror, Darkly" (ENT) both already suggested a very similar size?
What that had to do with anything I said? I'm not opposing upscaling the Connie, I just wish so many of the random background ships weren't bigger than it.
 
It is a bit weird that they enlarge the Connie so it wouldn't look so small next to DSC ships, but still design many classes of ships which are considerably bigger than it.
Especially as it was used as a deep space explorer, five year missions require a lot of cargo and supplies as all well as personnel and equipment.
 
It is a bit weird that they enlarge the Connie so it wouldn't look so small next to DSC ships, but still design many classes of ships which are considerably bigger than it.

There are only two other designs bigger then it, the Shepard and Crossfield
 
Oh right I forgot about that silly anti-hotlinking feature

I thought that only happened if you embed the image, oh well.

They resized the Vulcan 'Cruiser' it's now 43.3 meters instead of the 142 that was on the booklet cover image released earlier this year.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top