Not sure how accurate it is but given the figures I vaguely recall, this feels pretty accurate.

Realizing that the Discovery is longer than any of these ships really puts shit into perspective

    • HWK_290@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      That the Defiant is as big as the entire saucer on the Constitution class is wild. I thought it was much much smaller

      • xyguy@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s even funnier when you hear the Sisko’s initial description of the defiant.

        It’s a warship, nothing more, nothing less.

        And also

        No families, no science labs, no luxuries of any kind…

        Meanwhile it’s almost as big as the OG Enterprise which did in fact have a regulation size bowling alley inside.

        So all that space, basically just for engines and guns on the Defiant.

      • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I always forget just how large the defiant is. I feel like there is rarely anything close enough in the camera shots to get a good idea of scale. Other than DS9 I mean.

        • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Interesting thing is that everything shrunk after the Galaxy Class.

          I’m thinking it’s because the galaxy class was a relic of Star Fleet’s golden age. Most of their enemies were either allies or quiet, they started to think this little war thing was beneath them and turned their flagship into a luxury cruise liner.

          I wonder what post-Wolf 359 Picard would say if he met Season 1 Picard. Hell, I wonder what post dominion war Picard would say to both of them?

          • Jason - VE3MAL@lemmy.radio
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It mirrored the contemporary idea of the “End of History”, where all the existational crises were done with, the federation (was basically moving into a time of refinement rather than having to worry that the experiment might still utterly and completely fail. TNG was basically one long, slow lesson of why that was a flawed notion. You don’t build a cruise liner, fill it with families, and then intentionally send it into the kind of peril that regularly befitted the Enterprise D. In retrospect, it was completely ridiculous.

            • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I appreciate the link. I’ve seen the phrase “The end of History” before, but after reading about it, I can’t help but think the phrase has a quaint “Manifest destiny” vibe to it, people making some really powerful proclamations they’ll regret later.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Realizing that the Discovery is longer than any of these ships really puts shit into perspective

    All it puts into perspective is how much the nu-trek folks (both Disco and JJ-Trek) lost the plot on ship size. It makes no sense that either the Discovery or the Kelvin-timeline Enterprise would be significantly different in size from the TOS Enterprise.

    (This doubly pisses me off because I play Star Trek Online, where the devs implemented canon ship sizes and the Kelvin Enterprise stands out as being stupidly out of scale with the rest of the game.)

      • Basilisk@mtgzone.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, I do like so-called “Nu-Trek”, but at the end of the day this is kind of a tail-wagging-the-dog response. You can explain just about anything in lore after the fact, but when the rubber hits the road the real explanation is that someone in a Hollywood design team said “We want it to be BIGGER,” and then left it to the people who cared enough to find a reason why it would be justified.

        Far easier to just suspend your disbelief a bit further, I think. Yeah, Discovery is weirdly big. It also flies through space by a man infused with a giant tardigrade’s DNA sending the whole ship from place to place through willpower and a mushroom trip. If you can accept the second one, it kind of feels like the fact that the ship is a larj boye isn’t that much of a stretch.

        • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          It also flies through space by a man infused with a giant tardigrade’s DNA sending the whole ship from place to place through willpower and a mushroom trip

          Is this… is this Dune?

          I have not yet watched Star Trek Discovery, so this description just reads like Dune and the good old spice.

          • Basilisk@mtgzone.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I guess I just fundamentally don’t agree with the need for a “backsplanation”. I am of the camp that I’m totally OK with the Klingons looking different in TMP than in TOS because it wasn’t a 1960s TV show anymore and they wanted the aliens to look more alien, and that’s all the explanation that I need. The Enterprise is different between SNW and its appearance in Discovery because it’s a different show and they wanted to tweak its appearance some to make it more of a “hero” set. Spock and Sarek never mentioned his having an adoptive daughter/sister in spite of being in two series and a half dozen movies because Michael didn’t exist until Discovery and the writers thought it would make for an interesting tie-in.

            I have enjoyed the series since TNG in the 80s, and I’d love for it to come true some time in the future. But it’s a TV show, it’s not a history book. It’s fine if there are inconsistencies, none of it is real anyway.

            • Jason - VE3MAL@lemmy.radio
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              God the Klingon thing was silly. Do we need an explanation as to why the TOS ship had plastic, 1960s themed furniture? Do we need an explanation for improved camera resolution over the years? Why did we need a silly explanation for the improvement in makeup artistry so many decades later? And the explanation doesn’t even work. Genetics don’t work like that. It’s taking themselves too seriously. Either ignore it, or hang a lantern on it with an inside joke once, and be done with it.

              • Kristian Haapa-ah0)))@dice.camp
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                @VE3MAL @Basilisk Warf’s explanation to Sisko in that TOS time travel episode was so perfect. Nothing else was needed.

                It’s like Lucas making a whole Solo movie to explain the Kessel Run and how he was “right” all this time.

                • Basilisk@mtgzone.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The ENT mini-arc “explaining” the difference between Klingons “then” and “now” was absolutely unnecessary, but I do have to admit to finding it cute that the reason why Klingons became smooth-foreheaded instead of bumpy-foreheaded turned out to be a combination of all three of Bashir’s guesses in that scene.

          • constantokra@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wasn’t a fan of discovery at first, but by the time Pike and Spock came in it was obvious they had gotten some people involved who cared about the universe. I feel like it has recontextualized TOS, and added a lot of depth to the characters we’ve known for the longest time. And they’ve done a fantastic job of making the shows intelligible to new people, while adding heaps of depth, backstory and context for the rest of us with the simplest things, like Picard holding his flute at the beginning of season 3.

            People can completely ignore the new stuff if they like, but I like that they’re taking some risks. The alternative is what we got with the last star wars trilogy. Perfect casting, fantastic acting, excellent world building, and a story that meandered, found the safest route, and ended up not leaving much of its own mark. Or anyway, that was my opinion.

              • aethervision@universeodon.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                @Stamets I thought naming the lead engineer after the foremost authority on mushrooms showed a remarkable amount of commitment to the utterly bonkers tech. There’s a ‘anything can happen day” quality to the show that really helped the 60 year old franchise.

              • Prouvaire@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                name any show other than Lower Decks or Strange New Worlds that had a good first couple seasons

                TOS. 😎

              • constantokra@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes. And the characters. They have depth, and it feels like you know them, which makes putting lgbtq and neurodivergent characters on the screen that much better. I understand their motivations, and i’m autistic so that’s a real accomplishment.

                I’m not caught up on all the shows, because i don’t always have the energy for the active watching that something like Picard warrants, but they’ve managed to make even something as silly as lower decks have character development, depth, and add a completely different view of starfleet. Like, the whole chest alien conspiracy from TNG isn’t so wild when you see that there’s a wide range of people in starfleet that’s not so obvious from following around their absolute best and brightest.

  • ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Did not realize that the Intrepid class was that much smaller than a Sovereign class. I though it was maybe slightly smaller.

  • deepthaw@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I stand by my head canon that Galaxy class ships are equipped to deposit saucers on planets to establish starter colonies. It’s already basically a floating city in space.

  • SteleTrovilo@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have an inexplicable fondness for the Excelsior class. Both NX-2000 and NCC-1701-B are fun to watch. I would’ve liked to see more of them.

    (I know there’s a bunch in the Dominion War battle scenes, but never for very long.)