Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
New info: Defiant designed at 171m and another perspective
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boris: [QB] I recently e-mailed Gary Hutzel, who designed the Defiant along with Jim Martin and Tony Meininger (as you can read in the DS9 Companion, he and Meininger developed the final shape based on Lamborghinis and a few other cars, using a sketch of Martin's for reference). Even before the Defiant as we know it was developed, Hutzel established its size at 171m or 560 feet (1.5 times the size of a BoP = 540 plus 20 feet to make the number look good). I suppose that's why we see two rows of windows where Drexler has only one deck -- Meininger added these. This shouldn't have anything to do with a serious argument, and I had argued against the accepted MSD layout before. Here is the problem. If we look at the data from an intention-based POV, then yes, 120m looks good, feels right as compromise and satisfies the average viewer who doesn't look too closely. However, looking at it scientifically, as is usually done in these forums, it no longer makes sense. We cannot simply assume that the average of comparisons is correct -- we need more reliable ways of scaling the ship. The best possible way is to use the escape pod sequence in "Valiant", where we actually see the exact relationship between the rear pods and their hatches that are painted on the actual studio model. Assuming the reused Intrepid pods are 3.5m wide as designed by Rick Sternbach, the Defiant scales out to 150 +/- 10m. Then we look at the two rows of windows. Ok, we've seen exactly one window inside the Defiant, but what reason is there to suppose they're not windows? Drexler has about 1.2 decks (Deck 4 and the crawlspace) where the two rows are -- if his layout scales out to 110m, we get roughly 180m for ours; consistent with the evidence above, and more reliable than the VFX. (And it's two rows, not three -- the recent DS9 calendar picture by Hutzel clearly distinguishes between rows of windows and other lights in the area.) Then we come to the MSD. Does it make sense to prefer that layout over the characters' lines in "Starship Down" that clearly indicate that Deck 2 is not where the Engineering is, and that the entire ship must henceforth have at least four decks in the middle instead of three (with the Engineering being on Deck 3 at least, at least one more deck is required for the lower portion of the warp core). The three instances of "Deck 5" dialogue support this notion. If even the deck count in the MSD is incorrect, do we have any reason to trust the 110m scale derived from it? We need to look for other evidence to determine the layout. There is a turbolift plaque that indicates the presence of six decks where Drexler has three. Surprisingly, it fits quite nicely, and was probably drawn up based on the 171m size some time before the MSD. The directory on the plaque is still a bit problematic, but the deck count is consistent with the dialogue. Deck 6 would also be the first row of windows, with a possible Deck 7 in the second row. However, since the rest of the schematic is not quite accurate, we really can prove only five decks. Still, it fits the other important evidence, and must be preferred over the MSD. In conclusion: there are definitely at least five decks on the ship, and the ship is 150m long if the pods are 3.5m wide. Since 150m is so close to 171m, the design size, what reason is there not to accept 171m? The majority of VFX shots that suggest 60-120m? How do we know that the majority is correct? The MSD that suggests 110m? The MSD is incorrect. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3