Like the Super Star Destroyer @ 17.5km?

Oh well, it still looks cool.

"Your SSD should not be used to stab your giant battlestation, even if it suffers a catastrphic loss of bridge."
--Super Star Destroyer Operator's Manual, Chapter I: What Not to Do With Your SSD

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.

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.

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/

(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/

Note: There was also a similar book done for the original NCC-1701 with goodies like alternate ship classes (Did you know there was a federation Dreadnaught class back then?) and stuff that will clue you in on making your own props and costumes too! If you can find that one as well, then you have my respect.

-NeoRaven

Sorry, just defending my Trek-hood. =p

Well, I actually own both books, and as I recall the "fuel storage" on the ENterprise-D was about the size of a couple of standard officer's living suites... and just where in those decks do all those Jeffries Tubes -run-, tell me that?

If you must tell him that, tell him somewhere else.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

Ultimate proof of Bacon's writing abilities... when even your enemies want you to write their user manuals!!!