Re: STAR TREK Size Chart
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:12 pm
Modeling can be tough! But why? Things that are conceptually easy, but have often proven to be insufficient, vague, contradictory, inconsistent and/or implausible/impossible. Will the real Klingon BoP please stand up? As stated earlier, should the Centaur be scaled to Reliant bridge & photon torpedo housing or the Excelsior saucer? Tardis effect (the interior is too big to practically fit to the exterior)?
I'd like to build a fictional spaceship model XXXX to a specific scale -- seems simple enough. I need to know the shape -- which I may be able to get through pictures from various angles (as many as possible), schematics/blueprints (if available - which may have accuracy and/or detail issues) and/or model (both real or virtual - also may have accuracy and/or detail issues). There's also colors, which may vary from shot to shot depending on lighting/angle and also the original filming models real-life colors (which may appear different that "on screen"). Another problem -- how do you convert available paint colors to the color you seek?
Let's not forget the size! Don't bring up the size of the DS9 Defiant at the Thanksgiving dinner table if you want to keep things civil!
So what's a modeller to do? Research, analyze and deduce (even better, someone else does the heavy lifting - thanks Fleetyard!).
Size determination is often not an exact science -- unprovable in a court of law & very debatable. Why? Let's take a look at the hero ship (the series is named after it for Pete's sake!) for the TOS Battlestar Galactica (see analysis here). "Official" sources have stated lengths of 610m (2000 ft), 1609m (1 mile), >1609m (greater than a mile & >10x size of modern aircraft carrier), 1853m (1/960 scale), 3219-4828m (2-3 miles), ... Well, they all can't be right (could they all be wrong?!). Todd Boyce used "on screen" photographic evidence and analysis to calculate values including 827m (2712 ft), 1263m (4150 ft), 1270m (4166 ft), 3907-6465m (12,818-21,210 ft), ... Again, clear as mud. These calculations are based on a "known" value (which itself may vary - e.g. Raider size) and using that to extrapolate the ship size. Fleeyard's deck count calculations fall into this category (which use assumptions like exactly 3m deck height, where due to variations could typically put it in the 2-4m range with outliers for short/tall races, varying sized decks, porthole to giant bay window size, etc.). The result of these calculations typically are reported as a single precise value, rather that the less satisfying candidate size range (often quite large) which accounts for uncertainty (measurement, reference, etc.). BG is also an example of where there is a very large ship in comparison to others around it - visually, the small ship can often be considered "out-of-scale" since it would be unrecognizable/invisible if it were at the actual scale. The observer could speculate what the visual effects team was trying to do (with real life constraints like model size, screen size, etc.). So how does one reconcile discrepancies between onscreen, published (canon) info, written works, interviews with creators, etc.?
Well, there's no right answer. Going by the Battlestar Galactica book for which the pilot was based, I would lean towards the huge 2-3 mile range (Cylons would also be lizards, not robots!) for the intended size. Looking at the filming-practical "on screen" evidence plus stated lengths, I would say about 1 mile or slightly larger is the least inconsistent (most likely) candidate. Anything less than ~1250m would be too small due to the minimum physical size of the Viper launch tubes. Both those launch tubes and the landing bay entrance could be larger, so 1+ miles is not eliminated as a candidate. The Raider shadow calculation has flaws (shadow could be smaller due to angle on the surface or edge "fuzziness" or simply poor special effects consistency). I have a hard time accepting much larger since the corresponding ragtag fleet ships would also grow to unbelievably enormous sizes and the stated 75 Vipers/500 crew seem ludicrously small for such a huge ship. But I could "tolerate" any value from roughly 1250m to 2 miles in "myverse" if there was an available kit in my favorite scale (1/2500). So my personal bias leans towards available model kits (like the 170m Defiant / 214m Ktinga / 372m Galor /etc. produced by Round 2/AMT) and inertia from the community majority consensus.
@Fleetyard: Frankly, I'm astonished at the amount of research, collection of high-quality images of even obscure ships and collating into scaled charts that you have produced. It seems like a full-time job (maybe you're independently wealthy or have a team of minions, the world may never know!)
I'd like to build a fictional spaceship model XXXX to a specific scale -- seems simple enough. I need to know the shape -- which I may be able to get through pictures from various angles (as many as possible), schematics/blueprints (if available - which may have accuracy and/or detail issues) and/or model (both real or virtual - also may have accuracy and/or detail issues). There's also colors, which may vary from shot to shot depending on lighting/angle and also the original filming models real-life colors (which may appear different that "on screen"). Another problem -- how do you convert available paint colors to the color you seek?
Let's not forget the size! Don't bring up the size of the DS9 Defiant at the Thanksgiving dinner table if you want to keep things civil!
So what's a modeller to do? Research, analyze and deduce (even better, someone else does the heavy lifting - thanks Fleetyard!).
Size determination is often not an exact science -- unprovable in a court of law & very debatable. Why? Let's take a look at the hero ship (the series is named after it for Pete's sake!) for the TOS Battlestar Galactica (see analysis here). "Official" sources have stated lengths of 610m (2000 ft), 1609m (1 mile), >1609m (greater than a mile & >10x size of modern aircraft carrier), 1853m (1/960 scale), 3219-4828m (2-3 miles), ... Well, they all can't be right (could they all be wrong?!). Todd Boyce used "on screen" photographic evidence and analysis to calculate values including 827m (2712 ft), 1263m (4150 ft), 1270m (4166 ft), 3907-6465m (12,818-21,210 ft), ... Again, clear as mud. These calculations are based on a "known" value (which itself may vary - e.g. Raider size) and using that to extrapolate the ship size. Fleeyard's deck count calculations fall into this category (which use assumptions like exactly 3m deck height, where due to variations could typically put it in the 2-4m range with outliers for short/tall races, varying sized decks, porthole to giant bay window size, etc.). The result of these calculations typically are reported as a single precise value, rather that the less satisfying candidate size range (often quite large) which accounts for uncertainty (measurement, reference, etc.). BG is also an example of where there is a very large ship in comparison to others around it - visually, the small ship can often be considered "out-of-scale" since it would be unrecognizable/invisible if it were at the actual scale. The observer could speculate what the visual effects team was trying to do (with real life constraints like model size, screen size, etc.). So how does one reconcile discrepancies between onscreen, published (canon) info, written works, interviews with creators, etc.?
Well, there's no right answer. Going by the Battlestar Galactica book for which the pilot was based, I would lean towards the huge 2-3 mile range (Cylons would also be lizards, not robots!) for the intended size. Looking at the filming-practical "on screen" evidence plus stated lengths, I would say about 1 mile or slightly larger is the least inconsistent (most likely) candidate. Anything less than ~1250m would be too small due to the minimum physical size of the Viper launch tubes. Both those launch tubes and the landing bay entrance could be larger, so 1+ miles is not eliminated as a candidate. The Raider shadow calculation has flaws (shadow could be smaller due to angle on the surface or edge "fuzziness" or simply poor special effects consistency). I have a hard time accepting much larger since the corresponding ragtag fleet ships would also grow to unbelievably enormous sizes and the stated 75 Vipers/500 crew seem ludicrously small for such a huge ship. But I could "tolerate" any value from roughly 1250m to 2 miles in "myverse" if there was an available kit in my favorite scale (1/2500). So my personal bias leans towards available model kits (like the 170m Defiant / 214m Ktinga / 372m Galor /etc. produced by Round 2/AMT) and inertia from the community majority consensus.
@Fleetyard: Frankly, I'm astonished at the amount of research, collection of high-quality images of even obscure ships and collating into scaled charts that you have produced. It seems like a full-time job (maybe you're independently wealthy or have a team of minions, the world may never know!)
I mean, if you're extremely knowledgeable about a real life topic, you can be paid to teach it at an university and to do research about it, so why wouldn't it exist in TV/cinema/comic/game/etc fandoms?
