A very helpful soul has offered his services in regards to my Volumetrics page . . . I've added over 20 ships to it, though I haven't finished modifying the other text yet and thus the old version is all that's on the site.
One of the new additions is the NX Class. 199,505 cubic meters. This doesn't seem to mean much, until you skim up the list and note that the Constitution Class is 211,248 cubic meters!
The NX Class is thus disturbingly big compared to the Constitution. She has about 94% of the volume of the Constitution, which is bad enough. However, if you add to that the fact that her nacelles take up far less percentage of that volume, you come to realize that the useful internal volume of the NX Class is actually greater than that of the later Connie!
Fortunately, the NX has a crew of just 80 instead of the 203 of the 2250's Constitutions. This allows us to assume that the ship's inner mechanics . . . propulsion, life support, et cetera . . . actually take up a far greater percentage of the available volume than on the later ships.
Nonetheless, a less-voluminous design would've been preferred.
Also to appear in the revised list is Deep Space Nine. One of the more interesting questions, of course, was how large to make the station . . . 1097 meters? 1350? 1451.82? 2000?
I opted for a compromise position of 1275 meters, which falls between 1100 and 1450 and is close enough to 1350 to satisfy those who accept that value. Maybe off-the-wall, but it's all Stipes's fault.
That done, the value we obtained for the station's volume was 28,601,800 cubic meters . . . the equivalent of 135 Connies, almost 12 Sovereigns, or just under 5 Galaxies.
(Or 53% of a Star Destroyer)
Also potentially of interest would be the masses. As noted previously, I get low-end estimates of mass from the Doctor's 700,000 ton comment, and higher-end masses from Scotty's million ton comment. Between these two extremes, there ought to be the truth.
DS9's mass falls somewhere in the range of 32,000,000 to 110,500,000 metric tons. I would say that it should probably be on the lower end due to the lack of warp systems, but this is the same station which features duranium conduits with walls two meters thick in some places, as noted in that Tosk episode.
Though it's a little iffy to use the same range on the NX Class, nevertheless I've done so. The range would be 223,000 to 771,000 metric tons . . . probably on the higher side of that, given the closer temporal proximity to the Constitution from which Scotty's "nearly a million" tons arose.
Thoughts? Reactions?
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Umm...the NX-class is shorter than the Constitution, and the Connie is several decks taller. And the Constitution has two hulls...so how the heck does the NX have almost as much volume? Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
It could have something to do with the NX's upper saucer being convex whereas the Constitution's upper saucer is concave...
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Manticore: Overall length and height are sort of meaningless when you compare volumes. Particularly with a Connie, a lot of the length is from those nacelles and a lot of the height is from the neck. They add very little to the volume.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
That is true, but I still find it hard to believe that the concavity of the top of the nx's saucer add that significantly, significantly enough to counter the secondary hull of the Constitution.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
The saucer of the NX is also a fair bit larger then that of the Constitution even though the overall length of the ship is shorter. Couple that with the convex rather then cancave shape, and the two "outriggers", and that nearly makes up for the entire stardrive section.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
No worries, Manticore . . . I've found a few of the results really weird, myself. Yet, when I've sat back and looked, I could see how it worked out just fine. (For instance, I was stunned at first by the idea that the increase in volume from the Excelsior to the Excelsior B-type was about half a Constitution, but if you look at pics of the ships it's easy to see that even the engineering hull wings of the E-B are about the same volume as the entire engineering hull of the E-A, with the enormous impulse things on the saucer adding lots of additional volume.)
One thing the other gentlemen haven't covered (forgive me if I'm mistaken) is that ventral undercut on the saucer of the Constitution, which robs the saucer of a great deal of potential volume . . . about enough to completely remove either a few of the saucer ventral decks, or to remove the saucer's width advantage, especially on the E-A.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
I still have problems with a couple of your assumptions as to mass, though. First, we have no way of knowing if the materials used to construct starships remained constant between the different eras, so it may not be possible to simply "backdate" Voyager's mass figures for use in TOS (or Enterprise, for that matter). I also think the Voyager mass figure tends to inflate other ships' masses excessively in cases; for example, it gives a mass for the Galaxy class thats more than thirty percent greater than the figure given in the TNGTM.
Second, I'm really leery about accepting the "gross tons" estimate as being anywhere near accurate. By the definition you post on the page, it's clear the writer of the script either had no idea what the term meant, or no idea of the size of the Enterprise. The estimate is so far out of whack that I'd be tempted to toss it entirely; it's on a par with the line from "The Squire of Gothos" which implies TOS takes place in the 28th Century.
Finally, I'm curious why you didn't even mention the 190,000 ton mass generally accepted for the Constitution. Since that comes from "The Making of Star Trek" (and, ultimately, from the Trek writer's guide), I should think it at least merits some discussion (if only to state why you disagree with it).
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid: I still have problems with a couple of your assumptions as to mass, though. First, we have no way of knowing if the materials used to construct starships remained constant between the different eras, so it may not be possible to simply "backdate" Voyager's mass figures for use in TOS (or Enterprise, for that matter). I also think the Voyager mass figure tends to inflate other ships' masses excessively in cases; for example, it gives a mass for the Galaxy class thats more than thirty percent greater than the figure given in the TNGTM.
That sort of thing is the very reason I gave both the small Voyager-based mass and the large Constitution-based mass.
That said, the Voyager masses are still remarkably low. For instance, if you reduce the mass of the Enterprise-D by 30%, the density of the ship becomes less than that of water. In other words, the saucer section would float. (It's pretty close to water as it is now.)
quote:Second, I'm really leery about accepting the "gross tons" estimate as being anywhere near accurate. By the definition you post on the page, it's clear the writer of the script either had no idea what the term meant, or no idea of the size of the Enterprise. The estimate is so far out of whack that I'd be tempted to toss it entirely; it's on a par with the line from "The Squire of Gothos" which implies TOS takes place in the 28th Century.
To each their own. To my thinking, there's a vast difference between throwing out a contradiction like your Gothos example versus throwing out the one data point about the Enterprise's mass because it is felt to be "out of whack". In other words, there's no whack for the value to be out of.
quote:Finally, I'm curious why you didn't even mention the 190,000 ton mass generally accepted for the Constitution. Since that comes from "The Making of Star Trek" (and, ultimately, from the Trek writer's guide), I should think it at least merits some discussion (if only to state why you disagree with it).
My site is inflexibly based on the canon. There was no reason to mention old non-canon info, and it had not served as the basis of any canon data.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Whoa:
*Starbase: Spacedock-type 3,810 meters diameter 5,521,080,000 cubic meters 26,135 Constitution Class Starships by volume
*Starbase 74-type 8,780 meters diameter 67,229,200,000 cubic meters 318,247 Constitution Class Starships by volume
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:
quote:Finally, I'm curious why you didn't even mention the 190,000 ton mass generally accepted for the Constitution. Since that comes from "The Making of Star Trek" (and, ultimately, from the Trek writer's guide), I should think it at least merits some discussion (if only to state why you disagree with it).
My site is inflexibly based on the canon. There was no reason to mention old non-canon info, and it had not served as the basis of any canon data.
You didn't read his post, though -- he's saying it comes from the writer's guide, which is pretty darn close to canon. If you're that inflexible, then your analyses could be next to useless. (No offense intended.)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I'm not getting into a canon debate. I'll simply say that, far from being useless, the analysis is based on what the writers chose to put in the show . . . obviously, it is contrary to what was in the guide. That is what I said, and if that indicates a lack of reading of his post, my apologies, but I think my reading of his post was just fine.
If there are some who feel that the writer's guide should take precedence, that is of course their choice. However, I don't see the rationale for such a policy. If there are some who feel that the writer's guide, which evidently was ignored, is worthy of mention . . . well, that's their choice, too. But it isn't mine, nor do I see why it should be.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
My point is that you don't give any credence to the writer's guide figure at all -- you don't give anyone else a chance to consider the calculations, because you've tossed them out already.
quote:the analysis is based on what the writers chose to put in the show . . . obviously, it is contrary to what was in the guide.
Perhaps. Or perhaps there's a whole lot less organization in writing a television show then there appears. I can tell you from personal experience that Trek writers are always willing to pull facts out of their asses when the story requires it, rather than go searching through series manuals and guides to find the appropriate figure.
You should at least consider the "190,000 MT" figure alongside the "million tons" figure...
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: My point is that you don't give any credence to the writer's guide figure at all -- you don't give anyone else a chance to consider the calculations, because you've tossed them out already.
I didn't toss them out. They simply weren't invited to the canon-only party.
quote:Or perhaps there's a whole lot less organization in writing a television show then there appears.
Of course, but that's what we have to work with.
quote:You should at least consider the "190,000 MT" figure alongside the "million tons" figure...
It gets just the same amount of consideration as the Tech Manual masses, or the data given for DS9 in "The Making of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine".
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
It's all very well and good to make this a "canon-only" party, but if that's the case, where do you get the starship dimensions from? I don't remember any on-screen mention of length data other than Picard's line about the E-E being almost 700 meters long. If "canon = on-screen", then virtually everything you have would have to be chucked. If it doesn't, then how do you justify what you do and don't include?
My point in comparing the "Gothos" line and the "gross tons" is that both seem to be instances where the writer didn't have an adequate grasp of what he was talking about. Your own page shows that the use of the "gross tons" term is flat-out wrong. If we have to accept something even though it seems to be nonsensical, then we're stuck with a refit Constitution class that's 78 decks high.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Exactly, Woodside. My point is that if you're going to do a definition of what's acceptable and what's not, the traditional strict definition of canon is just not acceptable when you're trying to perform calculations of this kind. There's the ship dimensions (like Voyager -- aside from Sternbach's sketches and schematics, what's the source of its size?) or other capabilities.
If Christianity were this strict with canon, we'd still all be keeping kosher and ritually bathing ourselves after sex. (*ducks*) Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid: It's all very well and good to make this a "canon-only" party, but if that's the case, where do you get the starship dimensions from?
You answered your own question.
quote:I don't remember any on-screen mention of length data other than Picard's line about the E-E being almost 700 meters long. If "canon = on-screen", then virtually everything you have would have to be chucked.
I don't recall stating that I only accepted canon verbal statements. Star Trek isn't a radio program, you know . . . we get visuals from which we can make scaling efforts. Even if the answers are approximate, are they not better than ignorance?
quote:My point in comparing the "Gothos" line and the "gross tons" is that both seem to be instances where the writer didn't have an adequate grasp of what he was talking about.
That having been said, why don't you declare every value we hear as being "out of whack"?
No, seriously, I want an answer. I already explained the concept to you before, but you persist. So, I want your version.
As far as I can tell, the only reason you accept the other values is that you have no basis of comparison, and the only reason you deny Gothos and such is that you have alternative statements to work with.
In the case of Gothos, you have a contradiction with pretty much all other canon statements of time. In the case of gross tons, you have a contradiction with the writer's guide.
Don't you see that you're taking the writer's guide over the canon?
I mean, hey, that's cool if you wanna do that, but that's no excuse for you trying to ram your viewpoint down my throat as if I must accept it alongside canon Trek.
quote:Your own page shows that the use of the "gross tons" term is flat-out wrong.
If defined by naval jargon, yes. If understood according to general dictionary meanings, no.
quote:If we have to accept something even though it seems to be nonsensical, then we're stuck with a refit Constitution class that's 78 decks high.
No, because then we've gone right back to how that's canon contradicting canon, not canon contradicting some crap that people who were writing the canon didn't feel it necessary to pay attention to.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Guardian: Gross tons is only defined correctly as a measure of volume, regardless if you're using naval jargon or Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th Edition) ("America's Best-Selling Dictionary"). It's only weight if you use it incorrectly, which is what Scotty and the writers did. I think they probably meant it to mean "total weight," but chose the number without much thought since it sounded good. I also think that >99% of people take "gross tons" to be a measure of weight (as I did before reading your page). However, I like the writer's guide figure of 190,000 t. What you use on your site is your choice, of course.
Another way is to believe Scotty actually said "nearly a quarter million gross tons."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...we get visuals from which we can make scaling efforts."
Well, we've certainly seen how well that works...
Not to mention that, to get numbers from the visuals, you still need an initial number to work from. I mean, if the visual shows that ship A is three times as long as ship B, fine. But if it's never been stated how long either one is, you're kind of stuck, yes?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: [QB] Guardian: Gross tons is only defined correctly as a measure of volume, regardless if you're using naval jargon or Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th Edition) ("America's Best-Selling Dictionary"). It's only weight if you use it incorrectly, which is what Scotty and the writers did.
Sorry, I should've specified that I was referring to not using it as the naval-jargon compound term, so that gross is simply total.
quote: they probably meant it to mean "total weight," but chose the number without much thought since it sounded good.
And now we're stuck with it.
quote:However, I like the writer's guide figure of 190,000 t. What you use on your site is your choice, of course.
The funny part of the whole thing is that the Voyager mass figure, reduced commensurate to Connie volume, puts you within that ballpark.
In any case, I'm actually rather fond of the 816,000 ton figure because of the realistic engineering history it implies. Since the first ironclads ships have changed in many ways, including propulsion, hull materials, and design. The propulsion advances alone wouldn't be enough to make a carrier from ironclad technology . . . it couldn't be done. The metallurgy advances alone wouldn't be enough to make a carrier from ironclad technology . . . it couldn't move. And so on.
The starships of the Federation, then, using the same basic (but still improved) materials and alloys, still became lighter and stronger, and also more effectively driven by their more effective engines. As a result, it became possible to build larger ships that could go either the same speed or faster.
The 190,000 ton Constitution value, however, seems to suggest that only propulsion has really changed between the 23rd and 24th Centuries. Ship design got curvier, but the ships were still built of the same things with the same density and characteristics. They just got heavier, but fortunately warp propulsion advanced to a degree where they could still go faster, have more power for SIF, et cetera.
It takes the modern-day engineering concepts out of the equation in favor of improvements in technobabble.
But that's just my opinion (written as I just woke up, so be gentle if I missed words).
Posted by blssdwlf (Member # 1024) on :
"Gross ton" could also be used as a measurement of mass ( 1 gross ton = 2240 lbs or 1.016 metric tons ) in addition to the interpretation of a space navy's dead mass tonnage.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Nice Googling! I never found that. I've updated the page accordingly, and given you a thanks to boot.
Woodside, Minutiae, Masao . . . I think that cinches it. Would you agree?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Nice Googling! I never found that. I've updated the page accordingly, and given you a thanks to boot.
Woodside, Minutiae, Masao . . . I think that cinches it. Would you agree?
Yeah, well... I still don't have to like it though!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: That having been said, why don't you declare every value we hear as being "out of whack"?
No, seriously, I want an answer. I already explained the concept to you before, but you persist. So, I want your version.
You'd make a lousy philosopher, Guardian. You might want to invest in a few logic classes.
The point in analyzing canon is that everything in episodes might be "canon", but it's not necessarily factual. A premise (aka a point of data) must not create a contradiction with the weighted majority of other premises in the canon. If a premise creates a contradiction with other premises, then one of them has to be ignored. Contradictions can't be tolerated.
Now, of course this all depends on how you want to interpret what is factual in the entirety of the Star Trek universe. However, the point is to choose what is true such that as many points as possible may be retained. But sometimes, simply throwing out data becomes necessary.
quote:Don't you see that you're taking the writer's guide over the canon?
So? Don't tell me you believe that they really traveled at infinite speed in "Threshold"... I'd call that a perfect example of taking the writer's guide over the actual episodes.
My point is that in certain circumstances where contradictions or scientific fallacies are clearly and unarguably shown, it's acceptable to ignore that specific data. And when that data is thrown out, you usually need something to replace it -- so you go with the next best thing, which is the Encyclopedia and the writer's guides.
quote:The funny part of the whole thing is that the Voyager mass figure, reduced commensurate to Connie volume, puts you within that ballpark.
And now you're arguing from the other side of the coin, and just proved my point for you. Take a measurement that's obviously pulled out of the ass with a scientifically ludicrous unit of measure, and you compare that to a carefully calculated number determined by the designer of the starship (Voyager). It's obvious what's more acceptable.
Now, I'm not saying you should just toss out the "gross tons" comment -- but I am saying that you need to include the other data from the writer's guide. It's better when you're providing analysis to include all the available data. If you're going to ignore some of it, then include it, explain why you don't use it, and then toss it out.
quote:Woodside, Minutiae, Masao . . . I think that cinches it. Would you agree?
You might think so, but no. That's because I would much rather consider the original intention of those who designed the starship -- specifically Matt Jefferies et al. Or do you also believe that the Enterprise-A was really 78 decks tall, because William Shatner pulled the sign out of his ass and ignored the original intentions of the designers?
As I see it, if the data coincides with your existing calculations, I don't see why you wouldn't want to include it, simply to back up your initial work...
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: You'd make a lousy philosopher, Guardian.
No, I'm a quite good one, actually.
quote:You might want to invest in a few logic classes.
Already did. They generally only told me what I already knew.
If you do not see the difference between Gothos's 29th Century thing as "out of whack" (or Voyager "out of whack"edness, as another example) compared to the lone canon data point we have being disputed in the absence of any other valid data, then you might wish to take your own advice.
quote:The point in analyzing canon is that everything in episodes might be "canon", but it's not necessarily factual.
If we are operating under the basis of the canon policy, then that is in fact what we should accept. As my page is written in that regard, as noted quite plainly in my site's canon page, then there is nothing else to discuss on the matter in regards to my page.
Now, just as a fan, yeah, I have certain opinions that don't correspond with the canon presentation. However, I'm not going to claim that my opinions are right and the canon is wrong when operating under the "basis of canon" position. That is changing the rules in the middle of the game.
One of the hallmarks of philosophy, incidentally, is being able to play if-then games properly, following the rules set by the axioms and premises and understanding the world they create.
If we accept the canon as the basis of the Trek "reality", then what are the facts? The fact is that the Enterprise weighs nearly a million gross tons.
If we do not accept the canon as the basis of the Trek "reality", then what are the facts? The Enterprise weighs either 200,000 or nearly a million tons. Since they wrote the latter during an early first season episode (airing less than a month after The Man Trap), at which time we cannot expect them to have utterly forgotten the writer's bible, then it makes little sense to conclude that they were simply wrong. It is more likely that they changed it intentionally.
If it makes me a poor philosopher to be able to play in a dreamed-up world logically, then I question your criteria, not my ability.
quote:A premise (aka a point of data) must not create a contradiction with the weighted majority of other premises in the canon. If a premise creates a contradiction with other premises, then one of them has to be ignored. Contradictions can't be tolerated.
Your statements above have nothing to do with the million ton figure, because there are no other data points regarding the mass of the TOS 1701 in the canon. This is, incidentally, what I've been saying.
quote:Now, of course this all depends on how you want to interpret what is factual in the entirety of the Star Trek universe. However, the point is to choose what is true such that as many points as possible may be retained.
This is invalid. Retaining all data is not necessary, and is oftentimes fatal to one's hypothesizing. If I want to gather up data points to make a scientific hypothesis, why would I include the Bible or acknowledged fictional writings as primary, highly-weighted sources?
Naturally, I wouldn't. I would aim toward rigor. That's why there's a canon policy in the first place.
quote:
quote:Don't you see that you're taking the writer's guide over the canon?
So? Don't tell me you believe that they really traveled at infinite speed in "Threshold"... I'd call that a perfect example of taking the writer's guide over the actual episodes.
As a fan, I agree. But for the purposes of canon, I do not. Sucky as it may be, going warp ten (or what they thought was warp ten) causes wacky biological effects that will be poorly explained as "evolution" by holographic doctors.
Of course, there is a contradiction of this episode with "WNOHGB", in which passing warp ten produces none of the effects described. As a result, we have an exit route.
Thus, as both a fan and a researcher of the canon, I can write off "Threshold"'s claims about its own plot and understand them in some other way.
quote:My point is that in certain circumstances where contradictions or scientific fallacies are clearly and unarguably shown, it's acceptable to ignore that specific data.
Yes, but the trick is how it is done. Take that Aridas guy, for instance, who writes off wholesale any newer canon which doesn't agree with his non-canon. That is, in principle, the exact same maneuver being made by those who want to write off the million tons in favor of less than 200,000.
quote:Or do you also believe that the Enterprise-A was really 78 decks tall, because William Shatner pulled the sign out of his ass and ignored the original intentions of the designers?
Prime example. As given on my very page, we have clear canon evidence on the size of the Enterprise that contradicts the 78 deck value.
This is not the same as having nothing contradicting it . . . if nothing did, then operating as a canon researcher I would have to accept that size.
That's how it works.
quote:As I see it, if the data coincides with your existing calculations, I don't see why you wouldn't want to include it, simply to back up your initial work...
No, because accepting that value is contradictory to known canon values. To include it would be nonsense.
quote:And when that data is thrown out, you usually need something to replace it -- so you go with the next best thing, which is the Encyclopedia and the writer's guides.
If you've thrown out canon data without other canon data to replace it, then you're not dealing with Star Trek anymore but your own preferences. That's cool for a fan to do if they so choose, but they can't expect to convince a canon researcher that he's wrong for not doing so.
quote:Take a measurement that's obviously pulled out of the ass with a scientifically ludicrous unit of measure
Hey, I don't like the US's avoidance of the metric system any more than anyone else, but the Imperial system is hardly scientifically ludicrous . . . it's worked pretty well for a good long while.
quote:and you compare that to a carefully calculated number determined by the designer of the starship (Voyager). It's obvious what's more acceptable.
Both. You don't think any thought was applied to the million tons figure? On what basis do you say so?
And you know, all Sternbach did was to apply Apollo capsule density figures to the ships of Starfleet, with some upward and downward motion here and there. Ask yourself if using primitive and paper-hulled ships as a basis of comparison is more acceptable than giving grand starships that have to take megaton-level hits hulls and superstructures sufficiently dense to withstand them.
quote:Now, I'm not saying you should just toss out the "gross tons" comment -- but I am saying that you need to include the other data from the writer's guide.
I will not yield. I've given you the data, and the range includes values close to what you want. If you don't wish to accept the canon value or those values based on it, then don't. All I was trying to do was share some cool stuff based on research of the canon. If you don't like it, don't read it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You guys do realize how utterly devoid this debate is of any sort of point, yes?
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Of course it is...just like most of what we debate on this forum.
Okay, if this is a canon-only discussion, what are the canon sources for the starship lengths? As far as I know, the best on-screen, incontrovertible evidence for a ship's dimensions we have is the data display for the Kobayashi Maru. However, since that vessel is never seen, it's dimensions are useless for this discussion. I can't think of anything else that gives a comparable level of data; if I'm wrong, please point it out to me and I'll be glad to admit my mistake. In any case, the ultimate source for the 288m length of the Constitution (which forms the basis for the volume comparisons) is the TOS writers' guide. (Please don't point out the display with the Constitution and the Klingon warship; by following links on the Starship Modeler forum, I've seen graphics which show that the display's dimensions don't match those of the filming miniature (and thus it's length data cannot be used as to compare visual effects shots for scaling)). If you accept the writers' guide figure for the length as valid, why shouldn't you accept the mass as well? Me, I'll go with Matt Jefferies, thank you very much.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
(sigh)
The length value isn't based on the writer's guide. I explain in detail where I obtained them from, and your attempts to declare us incapable of knowing anything from the canon are futile.
Incidentally, I come here to relax and enjoy myself. I posted the volumetric data because I thought it would be cool to share and might spawn some interesting discussions about the differences between different ships, or that there might be some interesting scaling discussions about some of the values I chose for ship lengths that are contrary to the DS9TM.
Despite MinutiaeMan's insulting comments, and despite the ever-shifting arguments of he and his fellow non-canon fanboy, I've been pretty damned nice in this thread . . . far nicer than I would commonly be to fanboys of another universe's non-canon who try to pester me incessantly, peppering their pompous pedantry with insults in just the same way.
That said, however, I'm not going to put up with it any further. My page is based on canon research, as has been clearly and repeatedly stated, and it will take canon research to go up against it. Quit your non-canon bitching and give up your irrational arguments, 'cause none of it will do any good and I'm not going to be remotely swayed by it.
That is all.
Now, may we please go back to our regularly-scheduled good time?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, Guardian.
If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I'm not), you're saying that nothing outside of the episodes and movies themselves can be used to help interpret or expand upon the Trek canon, and that canon is indisputable and unalterable, and all-inclusive no matter the (apparent) contradictions.
I'll try to sum up and re-state what I've been trying to say: that the original intentions of the creators might trump a comment made by an outside writer who was not necessarily informed of the statistics, if the original writer's guide data fits the other established facts better (like Voyager's mass). I simply feel that the 190,000 mT figure needs to be given consideration alongside the other data points, if not for completeness than for usefulness.
Guardian, couldn't you at least include that data with a note that it's NOT canon, but being displayed because it may be useful IF the reader chooses to accept that source?
Just so there are no hard feelings, I was never intending to be insulting with my comments -- they were supposed to be friendly jabs. My apologies if they came across otherwise.
(Oh, and for the record, I'm working towards a minor in Philosophy, and I studied both logic and metaphysics with Richard Hanley, the author of The Metaphyics of Star Trek.) Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, Guardian.
Cool, that I can do.
quote:If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I'm not), you're saying that nothing outside of the episodes and movies themselves can be used to help interpret or expand upon the Trek canon, and that canon is indisputable and unalterable, and all-inclusive no matter the (apparent) contradictions.
No, not at all.
As a fan, that sort of thing sounds weird.
But, as a researcher of the canon (for want of a better term), attempting to understand the Trek universe as a functional and self-consistent reality, you're coming close. It isn't indisputable . . . elements of the canon disagree with other elements . . . but for the most part, we can try to go for a "best fit" estimate based on the available facts.
In the case of the million tons versus 190,000, we have a canon statement being contrasted with a non-canon one. By the concept of canon, the latter is disqualified, and even if we feel the million tons is wonky, it must be accepted because we simply don't have anything else to work with.
quote:Guardian, couldn't you at least include that data with a note that it's NOT canon, but being displayed because it may be useful IF the reader chooses to accept that source?
If I did so, I'd be going against the fundamentals of my website. Not only that, but including Trek and Wars non-canon on every page would produce tangents and page derailments even more numerous than what already exists. As has been often noted, my pages are pretty damned long as it is.
quote:Just so there are no hard feelings, I was never intending to be insulting with my comments -- they were supposed to be friendly jabs. My apologies if they came across otherwise.
It was probably my bad. I ended up over at TrekBBS where Aridas once again required my smacking, so I was probably over-reacting to the resemblance. (I only mean insofar as non-canon vs. canon and such . . . no offense intended or implied.)
quote:(Oh, and for the record, I'm working towards a minor in Philosophy, and I studied both logic and metaphysics with Richard Hanley, the author of The Metaphyics of Star Trek.) [/QB]
Philosophy major with honors here. Hanley's book wasn't too bad, but I do have some disagreements with him. But, then, that's philosophy.
Posted by blssdwlf (Member # 1024) on :
quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid: If we have to accept something even though it seems to be nonsensical, then we're stuck with a refit Constitution class that's 78 decks high.
I didn't have a problem with this because of how it was presented: The Enterprise-A is established as being built poorly and still in the process of having everything corrected. Now why could not signs be misprinted and improperly applied and Scotty had not gotten around to fixing it? That would be consistent with the movie.
Posted by blssdwlf (Member # 1024) on :
quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid: Of course it is...just like most of what we debate on this forum. ... In any case, the ultimate source for the 288m length of the Constitution (which forms the basis for the volume comparisons) is the TOS writers' guide. (Please don't point out the display with the Constitution and the Klingon warship; by following links on the Starship Modeler forum, I've seen graphics which show that the display's dimensions don't match those of the filming miniature (and thus it's length data cannot be used as to compare visual effects shots for scaling)). If you accept the writers' guide figure for the length as valid, why shouldn't you accept the mass as well? Me, I'll go with Matt Jefferies, thank you very much.
Hi Woodside Kid -
I've looked at the screenshot display with the Enterprise and Klingon ship and followed links on starshipmodeler to try and find what you refer to as not matching the display and could not find any. Could you post a link or two? As far as I can tell the ships appear to match up. Thanks.
BTW, anyone notice that the screenshot is almost the same as the line drawings found on pages 184-185 of "The Making of Star Trek" by Whitfield and Roddenberry? Its nice to see reference material actually make it into canon.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
blssdwlf and other consonants ;-),
There are several small configuration differences between the different Enterprise models, and also between representations thereof.
(This, incidentally, isn't a problem limited to TOS . . . as I mention on my page, the TNG Enterprise model and most especially the Defiant had numerous variations between models. Let's not even get started on the MSD's.)
What Woodside refers to specifically is the difference between the representation of the ship as seen on the side- and top-view compared with the model(s).
The best thread I've been able to find on the topic so far is:
"Of course it is...just like most of what we debate on this forum."
That's not really what I meant. I'm referring to the fact that the entire thread is devoted to trying to get Guardian to change his opinion of how he wants to run his own personal Web site. Which he's repeatedly stated he's not going to do. If he's said for two pages now that he's absolutely insistent upon basing his site on what some feel are illogical premises, what makes anyone think that repeition will somehow convince him oherwise?
Immovable object + irresistible force = this thread will never end.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Actually, TSN, while you're spot on the money in regards to how I was perceiving the discussion earlier, I'm completely cool with MinutiaeMan now and thus, the continuation of the thread has not been without purpose. We've both apologized (or if I haven't done so explicitly, I do so now), agreed to disagree on a couple of things, and gone on about our way like proper human beings. The thread, though not over I hope (since the page gives much to discuss), has reached its happy ending.
It's true that I can be quite the immovable object at times, but despite appearances I really am an easy-going guy most of the time. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, I was trying to explain my earlier comment, which was made before any sort of settlement was arrived at. Though, to be honest, by the time I made even the first comment, I wasn't actually reading most of what was being posted.
[ March 16, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
And Tim's secret for high post counts emerges.... Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
11 454 and counting, biotch.
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
11,455 / 233,981 = ~4.9% of Flare's posts.
Friggin spammer.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Christ, and I used to be so close to him, too. And then I discovered the joys of sitting on my arse and not moving, and I decided to do that, instead.
BAD FOR YOU!
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Sitting on your arse and not moving for 8420 posts, hmm? Fatso.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
No, I used to sit on my arse and type vigorously. I had as many posts as Tim. Then I got bored with and and just decided to not move, and he got ahead of me. Somehow.
Loser.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Friggin spammer."
11 455 posts from 12. Mar. 1999 to 16. Mar. 2004. That's about 6.25 posts per day.
Jeff has 10 355 posts from 5. Sep. 2000 to 16. Mar. 2004. That's just over 8 posts per day.
Besides, it's quality that matters, not quantity. I just happen to have both.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Are those figures canonical if they are on screen but aren't typed by Charles?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
I dunno, but they sure don't look realistic. I say we treat them as part of Flare: The Animated Series, and as such...apocryphal.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
We should really have some kind of dramatic music when someone types apocryphal. Especially if it's typed after a ...
Possibly for non-canon as well...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)