Discovery Technical Display

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
Post Reply
359
Jedi Knight
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Discovery Technical Display

Post by 359 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:17 am

Image
Image
Found some interesting display information on the USS Enterprise in DIS:"Brother".

Interestingly it lists the crew complement as 428[?]/430, whereas the dialog said something akin to all ≈250 were accounted for... The ships length isn't listed, but her nacelle length is, looks like 153.6m, which would make her total length (based on some fan model renderings based on the angles we saw in season 1) around 300m. Her cruising speed is also listed as warp 6(384c[?]) with a max of warp 8(512c[?]).

We also get some more volumetric information amusingly as another listing of the ship's Gross Tonnage: 100,000 Mg. This is in contrast (and more reasonable than) Scotty's statement of nearly a million metric tons.


EDIT: Trying to fix image host.
Last edited by 359 on Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Discovery Technical Display

Post by 2046 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:13 pm

I can't see the image, but if it is the one I am thinking of it is merely a rip-off from Franz Joseph stuff… even the updated Discoverse ship they replaced the Enterprise with in the image doesn't match the final version, as it has straight nacelle pylons rather than swept-back.

The ship's dimensions are shown as being identical to the ship from the original series, which of course is impossible with the completely different, squat design. Some online have speculated at a total length approximately 40% larger than the original series ship, and the information from production via EagleMoss places the ship at approximately 442m, which, if accurate, should hopefully quash the notion that the ship was simply refit back and forth. This is a different 1701 altogether.

See: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/uss-ent ... t-12731247

359
Jedi Knight
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Discovery Technical Display

Post by 359 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:02 pm

I think I've fixed the images so people can see them...

Additionally looking at the moving scene again I think it says "190,000 Metric Tonnes" instead of "100,000 Metric Tonnes".

It's true, the ship graphic lacks the swept trailing edge of the pylons, but there's nothing to suggest that the information should be straight up "incorrect." Additionally I see no need to identify this as a refit or altogether different ship as the one in TOS. Sure they look slightly different by some minor design details, but nothing in canon other than its on-screen look constrains the design to a specific shape or dimension. All of the shapes are basically the same, with only some slight proportion and curvature changes. And to be frank, the original design–while good for cheap 60's TV–is awkward looking at best. It definitely would not be passable in a show with modern standards. And it's always been my least favorite federation ship design, so I for one am glad to see it get some attention and minor adjustment. (Distinct ship designs, background kit-bashes and variants don't count)

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Discovery Technical Display

Post by Khas » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:45 pm

I would just like to point out that, technically, background notes for Star Trek ships are only canon in the way that the old SW EU was - if it's contradicted by what's seen on screen, what's on screen takes precedence.

As such, with this nacelle scaling, this would reduce the Discovery's size (and indeed, that of the Crossfield-class, altogether) to roughly.... 490 meters. Which is only 14 meters longer than the Excelsior-class (again, going by background notes).

And, if I'm going to be honest.... I was never overly fond of TOS' aesthetic, either. Even as a kid in the 90's, I thought it was a little.... hokey. Now, the TWoK-era aesthetic, on the other hand? That is one I've always loved.

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3900
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Discovery Technical Display

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:15 pm

As for Scotty's estimates of the mass, well 190 000 Metric tons is about 400 000 short tons.
Now imagine a full complement of shuttles, and heavy mining ore, and heavy building material for colonies, then perhaps on one mission the E-Nil did mass "almost a million -short- tons"... :)

I know, just bending over backwards to practice my flexibility, not to try and make things fit... :)

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Discovery Technical Display

Post by 2046 » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:09 am

Well, even if we ignore the rest of the graphic visible from the officially-released teaser, it's still got problems with the crew count versus the in-show dialog, and even the nacelle dimensions don't work. The Discoprise nacelles are fatter, leading to contradiction.

Given the reported CGI modeling at 442 meters, I am sure other issues will present when trying to smush the Discoprise into Enterprise dimensions, which were fairly well-established on-screen, just as one would expect trying to smush JJ's Monsterprise into them.

359
Jedi Knight
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Discovery Technical Display

Post by 359 » Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:57 am

Praeothmin wrote:As for Scotty's estimates of the mass, well 190 000 Metric tons is about 400 000 short tons.
Now imagine a full complement of shuttles, and heavy mining ore, and heavy building material for colonies, then perhaps on one mission the E-Nil did mass "almost a million -short- tons"... :)

I know, just bending over backwards to practice my flexibility, not to try and make things fit... :)
You should try out for Cirque du Soleil :)

But that aside, gross would imply mass at maximum load, similar to "Gross Vehicle Weight." And even more unfortunately, as is elaborated on st-v-sw.net's volumetric page, a "gross ton" is a measurement of storage volume as opposed to a metric ton [Mg] which is one of mass. Something that definitely supports 2046's supposition that they uplifted the material from the 60's (much like they did with Discovery's hull shape).

Khas wrote:As such, with this nacelle scaling, this would reduce the Discovery's size (and indeed, that of the Crossfield-class, altogether) to roughly.... 490 meters. Which is only 14 meters longer than the Excelsior-class (again, going by background notes).
I'd imagine the nacelle length would be different on different classes? Although I suppose one could argue they'd be of a similar scale...

2046 wrote:Well, even if we ignore the rest of the graphic visible from the officially-released teaser, it's still got problems with the crew count versus the in-show dialog, and even the nacelle dimensions don't work. The Discoprise nacelles are fatter, leading to contradiction.

Given the reported CGI modeling at 442 meters, I am sure other issues will present when trying to smush the Discoprise into Enterprise dimensions, which were fairly well-established on-screen, just as one would expect trying to smush JJ's Monsterprise into them.
There are issues of course, as there always has been, and it seems there always will be. Although I'd imagine someone like Okuda might have tried to catch the graphic to dialog mismatch...

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3900
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Discovery Technical Display

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:10 pm

I did not say « gross ton », but « short ton », as in measured in pounds, one “short ton” being 2000 pounds, or 907.17kg...
And “ton” used alone can imply both, and I was going for the latter... ;-)

And Cirque du Soleil didn’t accept my application, I wasn’t bending far enough apparently... 😀

Seriously, I don’t think the two figures can be reconciled...

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Discovery Technical Display

Post by 2046 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:49 pm

They can't.

Also, I let it pass earlier, but y'all's a buncha damn unwashed heathens for dissing the TOS aesthetic. It's certainly better than Eavesian monstrosities, though I grant that Probert Trek is best Trek.

So there.

359
Jedi Knight
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Discovery Technical Display

Post by 359 » Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:15 am

Praeothmin wrote:I did not say « gross ton », but « short ton », as in measured in pounds, one “short ton” being 2000 pounds, or 907.17kg...
And “ton” used alone can imply both, and I was going for the latter... ;-)
My apologies, I apparently managed to think myself into a knot on that one. You are correct. And I agree, reconciling the figures would be a stretch.

2046 wrote:Also, I let it pass earlier, but y'all's a buncha damn unwashed heathens for dissing the TOS aesthetic. It's certainly better than Eavesian monstrosities, though I grant that Probert Trek is best Trek.

So there.
Excuse me, I'm actually an "unkempt heathen" thank you very much. :)

It's not that I dislike Jefferies' TOS aesthetic, I just consider it to be a bit to "60's" for my taste. But, I also feel no qualms with throwing a bit of extra shade on it from time to time in Trek circles, because if there's one mild irony about "the typical" Trek fan it's their overly traditionalist attitude when it comes to new material.

I for one have liked much of the new ship designs, true the proportions and angularity has been changed, but I actually really liked the USS Shenzhou and most of the other Starfleet designs. Certainly more so than how post-TNG was trending with super thin angular hulls *cough* USS Prometheus. I define my favorite design era to be from Probert's work to it's blend with ILM's Alex Jaeger, but not in the direction of Eaves angular design.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5797
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Discovery Technical Display

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:57 am

Your screen caps don't show the whole readout. It happens that the diagram is based on an outdated version of the ship that Eaves worked up for the reimagined Discovery Enterprise. The most standout difference is that Eaves' final version had straight out support warp nacelle pylons, but the CGI crew slanted them back Phase II/TMP style. There's a whole discussion of it here along with some good screencaps on TrekBBS.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5797
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Discovery Technical Display

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:19 am

2046 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:13 pm
I can't see the image, but if it is the one I am thinking of it is merely a rip-off from Franz Joseph stuff… even the updated Discoverse ship they replaced the Enterprise with in the image doesn't match the final version, as it has straight nacelle pylons rather than swept-back.

The ship's dimensions are shown as being identical to the ship from the original series, which of course is impossible with the completely different, squat design. Some online have speculated at a total length approximately 40% larger than the original series ship, and the information from production via EagleMoss places the ship at approximately 442m, which, if accurate, should hopefully quash the notion that the ship was simply refit back and forth. This is a different 1701 altogether.

See: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/uss-ent ... t-12731247

I inked to the thread and the images show that the ship, if scaled to the given nacelle length of 153 meters would make her just about 290 meters, give or take a few meters. If using the 72 meter height, it's slightly larger, about 317 meters long. John Eaves kept the original proportions pretty closely in every regard except a slight alteration to the height and so that really doesn't add much. In fact, it completely contradicts all the non-canon EagleMoss numbers and it would make Discovery much smaller than the 700 meter number bandied about.
-Mike

Post Reply