posted
Thanks. Right now, I'm just doing comparisons with ships of certain size. The Galor is uncertain, but it can't be more than 481m long, otherwise the decks would be huge.
posted
I had another look at your page. A few things:
You mention that the turbo schematic places deck 6 as the base of the round dome on the Defiant bottom. How did you come to that conclusion?
How are you interpreting which of the lights are windows or not? I have this years DS9 calendar and I still feel the "windows" are ambiguous.
I'm not too sure about your Runabout comparison. The runabout looks a lot smaller (or the Defiant bigger) in the cap than what you listed. Perspective is certainly something that can't be ignored here.
posted
It mentioned the lower sensor module, which according to Drexler's plans is on the round dome. It definitely doesn't put decks five and six in the nacelles, otherwise there would be no mention of antimatter pods. On the other hand, it seems more consistent if the six decks would extend down to the actual underside.
The runabout seems to be 3/4ths of a nacelle here, probably less if we account for foreshortening. I really should make it 1/2 the size of a nacelle. In any case, it does not change the basic thrust of the argument.
As for the windows, I actually thought they were easy to distinguish on the new calendar -- their lights are much smaller. That's how I decided on two rows, not three, especially since two rows make sense at the intended scale. The only problem is that the lowest row isn't placed high enough, indicating that the windows are somewhere on the base of the deck -- however, such things have happened before, with the two rim-rows of the refit Constitution, for example, where the upper row seems to be placed too low on the upper deck.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
A question for a really old and probably tired topic? I know for a while, some folks from here were regularly getting replies from Drexler and Sternbach types on the startrek.com boards, but did anybody some-what official ever chime in on the Defiant's problems AFTER the DS9TM came out?
I was just wondering if someone like Drexler ever said "yeah these are/aren't the numbers for the Defiant"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If the door tag stickers mean anything and the '01' on the bridge tags still mean deck 1, then the '02-0601' on the Engineering doors should probably indicate that Engineering is on deck 2.
posted
The DS9TM basically ended the flow of "apocryphal" (invented by people who do the show) information, barring the few datapoints in "Starship Spotter" which do not exactly fall into this category.
Basically, everybody I've talked to (Okuda, Sternbach, Hutzel, Stipes) agrees that the ship is 171m long, including Drexler who, according to Rick Sternbach, said that the MSD and the plans shouldn't be treated as a scale drawing. Officially, we're supposed to assume that the Defiant has four decks and looks roughly like the MSD and the plans, except that it's bigger.
While there is some canonical evidence for 171m, we can't rely on the visuals because they merely tell us that the ship is somewhere between 60-170m long and looks like the studio model (most of the time.)
That's why we must look into the ship's interior for evidence. I'm sure Sisko wouldn't want an inaccurate MSD on his bridge and in the engineering drawings from "Shattered Mirror". That's why a 110m size is canonically inevitable, and that's my final conclusion on the subject. Fortunately, the VFX average to roughly the same value.
As for the decks, I think that, from a strictly analytic perspective, it is inevitable that Deck numbers in some cases are different from level numbers. It would explain every time a writer misses the deck count (i.e. Deck 26 or Deck 78) or misplaces a location, not to mention a bunch of incorrect door signs.
So, the Defiant most likely has four levels containing at least six, possibly ten decks (justifying the '0' at the beginning of the door signs, 02 05, 03 04, etc.), which are the technobabbly-complicated equivalent of today's "quarterdeck" or "poop deck". The section numbers might actually indicate discrete areas serving the same function, so you could technically have several Decks 2 all over the ship.
This explains how Engineering can be on Deck 2, Section 5 (02 05) but not on Deck 2, Section 01 (which I theorize is sometimes abbreviated to "Deck 2", and corresponds to the area sealed off in "Starship Down"). It explains how "03 05" can be on the bridge level turbolift doors. It explains the three references to Deck 5 without the need to modify the MSD.
"I'm sure Sisko wouldn't want an inaccurate MSD on his bridge and in the engineering drawings from 'Shattered Mirror'."
The "inaccurate" MSD seems a lot more useful than a 100% accurate one in which everything is so small that you can't see what it is.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If it were that, wouldn't it make sense to clearly indicate that the areas are neither to scale nor positioned correctly by showing them as rough patches separated by a yellow flood-fill? Who'd want to confuse a viewer by putting them together into a nearly perfect cross-section?
Whatever its overblown name, it's obviously just a map.
posted
How do you know there wasn't some very small print on a nearby console that said "Objects on MSD may be smaller than they appear."?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
A little known corridor aboard the Defiant.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Basically, everybody I've talked to (Okuda, Sternbach, Hutzel, Stipes) agrees that the ship is 171m long, including Drexler who, according to Rick Sternbach, said that the MSD and the plans shouldn't be treated as a scale drawing.
It's difficult to ignore the above facts and for that reason, as well as others, I currently accept the Defiant as 560'.
quote:That's why we must look into the ship's interior for evidence. I'm sure Sisko wouldn't want an inaccurate MSD on his bridge and in the engineering drawings from "Shattered Mirror". That's why a 110m size is canonically inevitable, and that's my final conclusion on the subject.
But it's impossible to consider the canon MSD as truely accurate anyway. Explain to me how the warp core can extend into outer space or how the nose's photon torpedo conveyor belt system makes sense? The damn MSD just doesn't make sense in too many ways. The DS9TM cutaway and deck plans are in some ways worse too.
[ December 04, 2002, 19:12: Message edited by: Dax ]
posted
Here's another angle you can take. Look at the size of a galaxy. 642 meters. Nobody disputes that (generally).
Now take the stock footage shot of a GCS docked at DS9. Scale them to get a length (diameter/whatever) for DS9.
You then have a size for the station. We know that the Defiants nose fits just inside the width of one of the main docking ports on the outer ring. Use the size of the station which you determined in step 1, to figure out the size of the Defiant.
My days of spending a good deal of time doing these things are way past, but if anyone can be bothered, go for it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
