LAST EDITED ON 05-05-03 AT 09:26 AM (EDT)
 
>>>My personal mileage
>>>varies on a number of the sizes, though.
>>
>>Like the Super Star Destroyer @ 17.5km?
>
>No, actually, I'm staying right the hell away from that argument.
>
>The thing that jumps out at me most is the fact that the Babylon
>5 ships are freaking huge. I realize there wasn't a hell
>of a lot of scale context on that show, but the Hyperion-class
>destroyer, which always gave the impression of being kind of old and
>clunky and cramped, is vast. It's almost exactly the same
>length as the SDF-1 and rather taller. And the Omega-class
>ship is bigger than a Star Destroyer.

(And, remember, the SDF-1 was apparently doing some fairly serious fscking around with time and space in its interior, ISTR. Primitive version of dimensional transcendentalism, maybe?)

>
>I realize that EA starship designs involve a lot of wasted space (half
>of the Hyperion's length is just scaffolding with a thruster at
>the end), but damn.

Yeah, there's also a lot of stuff that goes into B5 ships that Trek stuff just handwaves away - fuel tankage that isn't antimatter, life-support storage, hull thickness with reasonable amounts of armor instead of SIF's, etc. Personally, I think it's the Trek stuff that's undersized, for the reported crew levels....

>
>I'm not looking to get into (or read) an argument about this issue;
>it's one step removed from the old "who'd win?" I'm just surprised.
>(I had also always figured that a Battlestar would be about the same
>size as a Star Destroyer.)
>
>All of which means that this chart is probably not accurate for the
>UF universe.
>
>However, it is still pretty neat, and one of its scale levels has
>reminded me of a very nifty SF vehicle which I haven't used yet, so
>I'd say it was worth the visit.
>
>--G.
>-><-
>Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
>Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/