So it’s entirely possible that the workers seen COULD be twice normal human size if that’s what the filmmakers want to say.

They could be androids, aliens, humans modified by Transporter tech to be double-sized… any number of rationales for why the scale in that scene doesn’t matter.

And I thought it was said at some point that none of the windows actually “look out” and that all interior windows are viewcsreens.

Lensman, eh? I can’t say I’ve ever read that. I might just have to give it a try, if it’s the origin of all we know.

Coffee…need coffee.

Actually, after the coffee, I’m going back to my audiobooks of Doc Smith’s LENSMAN series (read ‘em in the early 60s). The origin of all we know.

Hey, fun explanation. I’m getting…I’m getting the subspace vibe that it has to something to do with Z-depth compensation.

Ah yes, Voyager’s 2nd shuttle bay. Silly writers indeed. :) That’s not one that seriously bothered me, though. As you said, it can be explained away with an additional maintenance bay. Not nearly as big of a deal as the ever-changing amount of decks on the Enterprise-E, or the mysterious elevator shaft in Star Trek V that has seventy-something decks (That one bothered me right from the moment I saw it in the Drive-In theatre as a kid. haha).

I agree that they are probably still trying to figure things out on the new E. In the end, they have given us plenty of evidence to sell it as a 700+ meter ship, and some fairly solid evidence to suggest it was not intended to be that big. I wish at least, if that were the case, that they would have re-designed the cgi-model to have proper windows and airlocks (They gave themselves plenty of extra time before the release after all). In the end, the ship appears nothing more than a modified TMP-era refit with a really massive interior shuttlebay.

Then of course, maybe there is a good techno-babble explanation for all of it. Temporal dilation within the space-time continuum appearing within the Alpha Quadrant 25.2 years BEFORE the appearance of the Narada caused quantum fluctuations which grew exponentially in magnitude by a power of 3 out to a radius of 73.65 light years. These fluctuations, which were in the high upper EM band (and therefore invisible to conventional sensors) had an adverse effect on the pituitary gland in the mind of the human male, causing highly increased levels testosterone. And although correlation can not equal causation, it is suspected by the Vulcan Ministry of Science that the unexplainable testosterone spike within the human race has caused an increase in the phenomenon whereby males compensate for feelings of masculine inferiority by having or creating big and flashy things. Initially, the new Enterprise was sitting on the drawing boards at Utopia Planetia R&D and measured in at 385 meters. However, as soon as testosterone levels started to fluctuate, the ship was hastily up scaled. Exterior hull detail and proportions remained the same, with the exception of the warp nacelles, which were for some reason redesigned to be bigger and more phallic. Starfleet engineers, having come to behave more illogical and sophomoric with their heightened testosterone, demanded that the engineering department double as a brewery. Further, these high EM band quantum fluctuations had adverse effects on the human eyes, making them less sensitive to light. This resulted in high intensity vanity lights being placed illogically through key facilities on the ship.

There we go. Problem solved! All it took was a little techno-babble. ;)

This is my sticking point. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the ship was designed to be roughly 300 meters long and very late in production someone decided to pump it up to 735 or whatever.

If they gave us a ship that looked 735 — meaning it had various relatable “cue” features that sold the scale — I wouldn’t have any kind of problem relating to disbelief. I might not like the larger size (Ent D always seemed too big to me, too), but I wouldn’t be trying to call shenanigans on it.

282: “Well, I’m not out to prove anyone wrong; we’ve been wrong occasionally on the shows but our hearts were in the right place and we always discussed things with anyone who wanted to talk tech.”

If we’re interested in the truth, being proven wrong is a kindness.