The comparison of the Nebula side view with with a Galaxy side view yields 440m for the Nebula. The side views given in the Fact Files and the Encyclopedias I and II are largely identical and don't show diverging proportions. The comparison, however, of the NCS bottom view from the Fact Files with a GCS top view leads to a figure of 465m. What is wrong and which diagram is wrong?
The following dimensions have to be checked: l: overall length, ln: nacelle length, ws: saucer width, ls: saucer length
2) FF NCS side view: l=18.7cm, ln=10.7cm, ls=8.1cm, ln/l=0.57
3) Known GCS dimensions: l=641m, ln=250m, ws=463m, ls/2=190m, ws/ls=1.22, ln/ws=0.54
Note that the FF views don't correspond, because the ratio ln/l is different. The relative scale of the single components (ws/ls and ln/ws), however, is correct in all diagrams. While the NCS bottom view consists of the same components, it is more stretched than the side view and accordingly yields 465m instead of 440m. Closer examination of the diagram shows that the Bussard collector is right beneath the saucer center in the side view, but is a bit behind this point in the bottom view. The saucer rear end reaches the rear third of the nacelles in the side view, whereas it's running roughly through the middle in the bottom view.
The question which version is correct is hard to answer, because of the non-perpendicular perspectives of the existing studio model photos of the Farragut or Sutherland, but the relative position of nacelles and saucer looks as if rather the side view is correct and the length is only 440m.
------------------ "No, thanks. I've had enough. One more cup and I'll jump to warp." (Janeway, asked if she would like some coffee in "Once upon a Time") www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/
posted
They are a collection of pages, that you collect every week and put into binders. I think if you work it out its REALLY expensive - I stopped after issue 3 or 4 - I think there are three binders so far and still going strong. I think Larry Necembek who did the TNG Companion (which I really enjoyed) works on them
------------------ "I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die, while you discuss this invasion in a committee" Queen Amidala - Star Wars: Episode 1, The Phantom Menace
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
It's actually a British/Australian publication also translated into German. They are the closest you'll get to actual fans browsing the production archives for specs, and I consider them to be on par with the tech manuals.
As for the Nebula, why not average these out knowing that none of the diagrams can be perfectly correct? It's not such a big deal anyway, 5%.
posted
Boris: Maybe one of the two diagrams is actually correct. I can't decide it, because the angled views don't allow to see the slight difference.
I have collected the Fact Files up to issue 68 or so, and it's already filling five binders. The British Fact Files are already in the 120's.
The overall content of the Fact Files is about the same as of the Encyclopedias, but is streched with a lot more images and text redundancy. My favorite (translated back): "This window allows to look outside." This is what I dislike about the Fact Files, they focus on things everyone knows or on trivialities. What I appreciate is that they only include off-screen information with a few exceptions, on the other hand, I miss Okuda's behind-the-scenes information. The best about the Fact Files are the great images and schematics. Still, it's too expensive. Each issue of the Star Trek Magazine has more content than ten FF issues at only twice the price.
Starbuck "Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"
Member # 153
posted
The Fact Files are two UK pounds an issue (about $6 US) and are fortnightly. True, there's lots of crap in there, but until the other magazine comes out over here... The one thing I wish the Fact Files did have is production art. Apparently there's some stuff on the Akira by Alex Jaeger in there... Anyone want to make an offer and mail me some issues?
------------------ WARNING: Storing semtex in the microwave may be hazardous to your health!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
