[Futureguy]

Originally Posted by kevin

You're probably right about FC - go figure indeed!

But hey, the more decks the better - when you do as much running around the ship as they do, you want plenty of space to cover!

Maybe the "E" has been a Tardis all along as some have suggested!
Just kidding!

[Admiral Archer]

Originally Posted by NCC-73515

The Enterprise also changed her appearance to an old rejected design just for a shield diagram in Nemesis

And this was not even the first time it happened! I heard that in one of Nick Meyer's Trek films (either 2 or 6, can't remember which) there was a computer diagram on the bridge which showed a TOS configuration Enterprise instead of the proper refit design. Oops.

[Jim in St. Louis]

Originally Posted by Admiral Archer

I heard that in one of Nick Meyer's Trek films (either 2 or 6, can't remember which) there was a computer diagram on the bridge which showed a TOS configuration Enterprise instead of the proper refit design. Oops.

That was the Search for Spock when Chekov scanned the life form in Spock's quarters. The display was TOS Enterprise.

[Admiral Archer]

Oh yeeeah! Sorry, Mr. Meyer, for the false accusations!

[Commodore]

I wager ten quatloos and a barrel of quadrotriticale the nuEnteprise has 72 decks. Why 72? 'Cos I sez so...


But as far as the Enterprise-E having more than 24 decks, that never bothered me in the slightest. It's was a brand-new ship barely a year of Spacedock. Anything below deck 24 may have been mostly empty spaceframe to allow for future expansion (like additional crew quarters or other mission-related facilities or equipment yet to come), IMO...

[Admiral Archer]

I still think somewhere between 15 and 25 is perfectly reasonable, considering the various lengths that the ship has been given by various different speculators. Unless it really is 800 meters long, in which case it would be roughly 40 decks, which I think is just plain stupid for a TOS-era ship.

[Kaboom]

Originally Posted by Admiral Archer

Unless it really is 800 meters long, in which case it would be roughly 40 decks, which I think is just plain stupid for a TOS-era ship.

Unless it's 47 decks, perhaps? That'd be acceptable.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Commodore

I wager ten quatloos and a barrel of quadrotriticale the nuEnteprise has 72 decks. Why 72? 'Cos I sez so...


But as far as the Enterprise-E having more than 24 decks, that never bothered me in the slightest. It's was a brand-new ship barely a year of Spacedock. Anything below deck 24 may have been mostly empty spaceframe to allow for future expansion (like additional crew quarters or other mission-related facilities or equipment yet to come), IMO...

As far as attempting to rationalise what are basically script-checking errors that's probably as good a rationalisation as any if one wants to view it that way.

[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by Admiral Archer

I still think somewhere between 15 and 25 is perfectly reasonable, considering the various lengths that the ship has been given by various different speculators. Unless it really is 800 meters long, in which case it would be roughly 40 decks, which I think is just plain stupid for a TOS-era ship.

[Admiral Archer]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

Hete to say it Zim, but I do agree with you that the supposed 800 meter length of a Constitution-class starship is preposterous. Even the most outlandish alternate dimension wouldn't allow for THAT much of a change, and I found the original measurements for the ship (which was supposed to be 366 meters) to be much more plausible. There is no way in hell that a mere 30 year divergence in the timeline would blow a ship up to over three times its original size. Even Nero and the Narada in all their grim glory could not screw the timeline up THAT badly.