posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Masao:
The difference, I think, is in your use of the word "considerable," which suggests you give earlier Treknology more weight than I would.

---

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Masao:
Screen grabs are better. Anyway, the windows on the main part of the hull indicate 6 (uneven) decks with some space above and below. If you line the decks up with those of Enterprise, you get an overall length for Huron of 200 m ± 5% (i.e., 190 m [my figure] to 210 m [Bernd Schneider's figure]), at which point this ship looks too big. So, I choose to throw out the windows.

---

Which is certainly an option, but at that point essentially you can make the ship any size you want since you are back to no way to estimate the size (nacelles being less reliable and resulting in an even larger size). I would prefer a ship smaller than 200m myself, for the reasons I previously explained. But ultimately these come back to aesthetic reasons or based on assumptions about efficiency (at least in my case). But I also suspect we both prefer it when we can have a "fact" based Treknolgy, its just that we don't like this particular 'fact'.

The only other estimation method I can come up with is assuming the bubble forward-top is the bridge, estimate the size of that, and extrapolate from there. This seems to have been the technique you used at a young age to come up with an estimate.

BTW, the difference between Mr. Schneider's (214m) and your own estimate (190m) ends up being a 43% difference in volume. So even seemingly minor differences add up, just not aesthetically.

Ultimately though, since we have two clear sets of adjacent "window" rows (in as decent a side-shot as you can get from TAS), the the most reasonably "canon" estimate (whether anyone likes it or not) should be based on them. In my TOS 1701 deck study I referenced (whether anyone likes it or not) the result was that window placement indicated a variety of deck heights, which was somewhat linked to alleged usage. Since this is a freighter, and might be built to somewhat less ostentatious standards, its fair game to use the "wiggle room" different deck heights provide to result in a smaller size. The submarines I've been in were pretty tight to me, but people were on them for periods of time probably exceeding the runs these freighters would make. Pick some deck heights (ratchet it down to 6.5'-7' clearance for at least curiosity's sake), calculate some estimates, see what you think.

These TAS freighters all look very funky to me. Someone detailed them up in odd ways, and the Huron is no exception. My guess (as I think I expressed before) is that the "gap" beneath the "bridge" area is meant for another vertical cargo module (looking like what is seen in the lower-aft of the ship, which implies it is also modular), and the space between that might be capable of two side mounted modules, possibly capped by a larger bottom mounted module (similar to how people have envisioned the robot freighter as modular, with a series of irregular modules attached in various places). Add that to my list of things to accomplish in 3D at some future date, it looks like an interesting exercise. Adding all these hypothetical modules would "bulk" out the ship considerably and might reduce your aesthetic-size concerns. You might want to try a quick and dirty mock-up and see what you think. If it 'works' for you then your concerns over the result of the window estimates are vetoed.

In this case, looking at your work, going through the facts we have... the result has been that I've changed my opinion. I still think the ship looks like a small freighter, but the data tells us different. Its not just a haphazard collection of lines concocted for a children's television show. Its a clear (and within the limits of the media) consistent ship design. If it was meant by the designer to be a small freighter, that could have been accomplished by using fewer and smaller windows. In this latest screen shot, for example, we have the Enterprise's bridge module in the foreground and the Huron in the background and its not looking very small, at least if we assume a reasonable distance between the two ships. So, from that particular perspective, our "TAS MK-I eyeball" and the window placement estimates seem to be in agreement. So, as much as it sticks in my craw, and as much as I would like to argue with the designer over this, the facts are pointing the other way. To me. For now.

Whatever you ultimately decide will be fine. And, I'm sure over the next decade or two every one of the methods of estimating the size of this ship will be used on it by someone somewhere, and maybe they will even work up full deck plans (as has been done in the early days. But I've found over the years that a part of Treknology is finding an answer you didn't expect, and may not like, and finding a way to accept that. Sometimes one is not even sure if that is the "right" answer, but its the best one to be had at the time. Maybe this is one of those times?

Remember, if this was easy, the franchise would have done it already!

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Is that a Matt Jeffries design? Those wacky forward pylon thingies with their weird shapes seem like his stuff.

---