Sometimes it's hard to comprehend the size of some ships without truly being on them or a comparison.
Especially on TV. You never really got the true scale of the E-D on the show.
One thing I always told people that you can easily fit the Titanic on the flight deck of a aircraft carrier with room to spare. Not saying the carrier won't sink but still...
Re: The Real Size of Star Trek Ships
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:27 pm
by Graham Kennedy
McAvoy wrote:Sometimes it's hard to comprehend the size of some ships without truly being on them or a comparison.
Especially on TV. You never really got the true scale of the E-D on the show.
One thing I always told people that you can easily fit the Titanic on the flight deck of a aircraft carrier with room to spare. Not saying the carrier won't sink but still...
Now and again somebody suggests building a replica of the Titanic for novelty cruises. But people don't realise that the ship was tiny compared to modern cruise liners.
And honestly, in terms of facilities it's kind of a dump by modern standards. The Titanic didn't even have a swimming pool. And can you seriously imagine people today paying to travel in steerage?
Re: The Real Size of Star Trek Ships
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:22 pm
by Captain Seafort
Graham Kennedy wrote:The Titanic didn't even have a swimming pool.
McAvoy wrote:To this day it is still filled with water too.
I'll see myself out...
Re: The Real Size of Star Trek Ships
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:20 am
by McAvoy
Back to the original post, I think we also should factor actual living space. Those nacelles (with the exception of course the Defiant and Voyager) take up a lot of length.
I mean the Galaxy class becomes even more impressive when you factor that in.
