So, now that we know what the Enterprise looks like, how big is she? Assuming that little circular feature near the bridge is a turbolift, I get right at around 230 m. A comparison with the Constitution class can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/ryanmcreynolds/ent-ent-comparison.jpg. Geocities does suck, so you'll have to cut and paste.
It appears that the Enterprise as a saucer roughly the same diameter as the Constitution, but somewhat shallower. There's no indication that the catamaran hull or pod are inhabitable, which may account for the smaller crew complement, just 20% of the Constitution. Additionally, it can be assumed that ship's systems take up a lot more volume as well, not to mention stores and cargo space.
[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
Between 230 & 250 meters sounds pretty good to me. Postulating lack of replicators (delivery chutes like NCC-1701?) would necessitate much larger cargo holds. Also, if we don't have antimatter/matter annihilation reactor, we're going to be using a deuterium fusion reactor. So we'll need pretty large deuterium bunkerage. (or will they have antimatter power?).
I'd like to see a topside comparison view of this ship and the old 1701. I don't know how to upload said files. Ryan, if I send it to you by email, can you post?
Ryan: You KNOW what we're going to be doing with this ship in a about a year - right?
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Do you really need less cargo space with replicator technology? Granted, you can carry big tanks of Organic Chemicals (Edible) rather than freezers full of steak, but the amount of stuff is the same.
Of course, I suppose the generic goo can be stored at much greater densities. But does that mean that a food core breach would lead to minor disaster?