posted
The book "Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" lists a length of 990.6ft (302m) instead of 1000ft (305m). I know the 1000ft figure is on that ST:III ILM chart and is also used in the Encycs but, I've always wondered where the other figure originated from. It occured to me that it was the original intended length and that ILM just rounded the number to 1000. Does anyone know more about this? Or did Shane Johnson (author) just make the 990 figure up himself?
------------------ "Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets) Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
I know that the 304.8m figure can also be found in the TMP blueprints. A couple of other sizes I checked from the 'prints all convert to whole numbers of feet. It seems likely that the numbers come from Andrew Probert himself, because the 1000' figure corresponds to the ILM charts perfectly. Perhaps SJ merely measured off a scaled drawing, while the blueprint-makers received their figures from Probert directly?
Strangely enough, James Dixon didn't complain about those figures in his "What's Wrong with Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise". Does he know more about which set of figures is correct? Anyway, the simplest way to answer this question would be to e-mail Andrew Probert directly (the e-mail address is on his website).
Boris
------------------ "Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."
---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide
posted
Since this is merely a difference of 1%, I don't care too much about it.
------------------ "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." A somewhat different Janeway in VOY: "Living Witness" Ex Astris Scientia
[This message has been edited by Bernd (edited November 02, 1999).]
posted
Rather than round numbers, there is probably an obscure mysticism involved, maybe 12 times 7 plus 3 Rigellian feet.
------------------ "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." A somewhat different Janeway in VOY: "Living Witness" Ex Astris Scientia
posted
Upon reconsidering I found it's not so good an idea, since the Rigellian foot would be 3.505 meters. o:
------------------ "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." A somewhat different Janeway in VOY: "Living Witness" Ex Astris Scientia
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
Even simpler explanation: these numbers are not canon, and are merely approximations used within the U.S. imperial-bound production offices. We've adopted those approximations out of a desire to maintain consistency with published materials, but the actual figures may vary by a few percent.
And I was kinda surprised about the extent to which the imperial system is still in use in the U.S. I had seen US elementary textbooks before, and was under the impression that the kids were taught both systems, and that both systems are in public use. This Is true to the extent that coke-bottles and various products are measured in both systems, but the imperial system is clearly predominant.
Speaking of which, did you hear about the recent mishap at NASA? A spacecraft was thrown off-course and completely lost, and that only because the ground control thought that a certain thrust specification was given in Newtons, whereas in reality, it was given in pounds Oops.
Boris
------------------ "Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."
---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide
posted
It was my understanding that a programmer forgot to convert his figures, and off it went.
When I was in high school, it would be 22 years ago, as I was still two years from graduation, They started teaching metrics. It was a simple, elegant system, but people here hate change, and the metric system still hasn't taken hold. I suspect it will some day.
------------------ Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!! Gandalf
posted
As far as the metric system, aside from a brief introduction to it in Chemistry we never learned it to the extent of using it in place of, what'd you call it..imperial system? Personally I've never understood why conversions have failed. Though I'd have to blame it on ignorance is bliss. For example the 21st century and new millenium. Most people if you asked them would tell you it starts 0001.1 (Jan. 1, 2000). While others will tell you it actually starts 2001. I don't know about other countries, but it's a common misconception here in the US.
------------------ 7 of 9 alarm clock: "Wake up. Resistance is futile." Dilbert: "I wonder if I could ever date a woman like Jeri Ryan." 7 of 9 alarm clock: "That too is futile." Federation Starship Datalink - Now with a pop-up on every page...damn you Tripod!
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
The millenium matter is interesting: there never was a year zero, probably because zero wasn't considered a nice number in the old days. It's 1 B.C, and then 1 A.D. Because of that, the first millenium and the first century both started in 1 A.D, the second century in 101 A.D. and so on.
Boris
------------------ "Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."
---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide
Oops.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
