quote: After checking with Mike & Rick, we’ve agreed that the “retro-canon” length of the Ent-C is 1570 feet/478.5 meters. The length given in the ST Encyclopedia is simply a mistake. Thus canon is given; thus canon is taketh away.
So we've gone from 526m to 475.5 meters? I dont buy it- the transporter emitters dont scale right at that length, for starters.
this would place the Ambassador as just slightly shorter than an Excelsior.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on June 28, 2009 05:23 AM:
It's been a long damn time since I obsessed over ship lengths, but I've got some old text files with length lists here, and I had the Excelsior at 466.65m. So, I assume you mean "slightly longer".
Although, if it makes you feel better, farther down in the comments of that post, they determine that the four-foot E-D was probably really 49.25" long. If you go back and do the original calculation with the corrected number, you get 1530', which would be slightly shorter than an Excelsior.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on June 28, 2009 11:45 AM:
Yes, thaty's what I meant- duh on my part.
Posted by MattC (Member # 1391) on July 03, 2009 01:01 AM:
The CGI version used in the ships of the line book is 526m based on the length I got from Rick.
M.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on July 03, 2009 02:33 AM:
"Wow, a whole boatload of detailed pictures of the Ambassador studio model, with comments from Sternbach and Kerr, and we don't have to shell out ten dollars to buy a magazine to see them. THANKS Drexler!"
I still wish they'd have added a visible torpedo launcher on the front of the neck, it is even there in the concept drawing.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on July 03, 2009 08:58 AM:
Hidden behind a panel which opens up in battle?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on July 03, 2009 12:58 PM:
That's a crappy idea- what if the panel gets damaged? Better that the launchers are on the sides of the secondary hull like on the Excelsior, though that would mean two torpedo rooms...three if there are aft launchers.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on July 03, 2009 03:35 PM:
Since it's in the neck over the dish in the concept drawing, and it's a design retconned as the forerunner to the Galaxy class, the neck is where it should be. They simply forgot, just like they forgot to add visible aft torpedo launchers on the Nova class.
I seem to remember there being a small aperture where the launcher should be in "Yesterday's Enterprise" though, which actually was a mounting hole for some camera equipment or power cord.
Posted by MattC (Member # 1391) on July 03, 2009 05:37 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Nim: I still wish they'd have added a visible torpedo launcher on the front of the neck, it is even there in the concept drawing.
Right on. Which is probably why we chucked a pair of ent-a style torpedo tubes on the neck of CG Ambassador.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on July 03, 2009 10:14 PM:
What's all this I hear about someone putting tubes on a CG Ambassador? Any proof to support the claim?
Regarding ship lengths, the Ambassador would still outmass the Excelsior even if only being ten meters longer, wouldn't it?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on July 04, 2009 07:39 AM:
Look right above your first post Nim.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on July 04, 2009 08:26 AM: