Talk:Oberth class/archive

On revert

I reverted the following edit due to its extensive removal of apparently proper, cited material from the main article to the background information. I leave it here to be discussed.

The size discussion

There is a lot of confusion about the correct measurements of this class because some reference works list it as one constant version with a length around 150 meters. But if the appearances through the movies and series are analyzed it becomes indubitable that there are three different versions of this class.

i have a picture of about 30 classes of ships and its listed at 132m i know the books are not canon but its still yet another size listing

The Tsiolkovsky type

The only definite appearance of this type can be observed in TNG: "The Naked Now" where the USS Tsiolkovsky is towed of by a Template:ShipClass starship. Regarding the low range of a tractor beam the Tsiolkovsky is quite close to the Enterprise-D what allows a very precise calculation of her size in comparison with the well known dimensions of a Galaxy class. Working with the proportions of the reused movie model of the Grissom the following data becomes canonical for this ship:

• Length: ~265m
• Beam: ~150m
• Height: ~80m
• Decks: 12-13 (without pylons)
• Crew: ~80 (mentioned)

These dimensions fit perfectly to the given crew complement and the observations of spacious interiors (which were re-dresses of the Enterprise-D and -A sets), leaving enough space for laboratories and other things a science ship is supposed to have. The saucer section will have about four decks.

It is unclear if the USS Grissom is of the same type, but its spacious bridge (a partial re-dress of the refitted Template:ShipClass bridge from Star Trek: The Motion Picture) may indicate this.

The Vico type

This type is significant smaller than the Tsiolkovsky type, its definite appearance is in TNG: "Hero Worship" where the master systems display of the SS Vico is visible in the background clearly showing two decks within the saucer section. Fortunately this allows also a precise calculation:

• Length: ~115m
• Beam: ~60m
• Height: ~35m
• Decks: 8 (13 with pylons)

A ship of this size would have a far smaller crew complement, likely less than 50. Its role is unclear, but if it is a science ship type its research capacities will be limited due to the limited space.

The Cochrane type

This type is another curiosity that appeared in Star Trek Generations during the last scene of the movie. In this case, the size comparison is more difficult, but the unnamed Oberth class (maybe the USS Valiant) can be seen in comparison to a Template:ShipClass cruiser and a Template:ShipClass starship. Especially the latter dwarfs the Oberth to dimensions of a runabout. Regarding this scene it is indubitable that this type does not come close to the size of the Vico type. In comparison to the definitely known size of the Nebula class (length: 442 meters) this ship is not longer than 50m, wider than 28m and higher than 15m. The saucer section will have a diameter of only around 12m and one deck. This makes it nearly impossible that it can be classified as a full science ship, more likely is the role of a transport or a surveyor. The former is supported by the appearance of the USS Cochrane in DS9: "Emissary" which transports personnel to the outpost Deep Space 9. The Cochrane appears also to be quite small compared to the huge space station.

Conclusion

It is unfortunate that the special effects for the series and the movies were produced by different companies so that the size of this class changed at least three times. On the other hand, issues with ship's dimensions are nothing new inside the production of the Star Trek universe.

--From Andoria with Love 20:46, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Not cited?!? It is cited with links and pictures, the previous stuff was not cited, not mine... (and I removed nothing, I only added informations...) --Porthos 21:17, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Er... I never said your info was not cited... but that is a lot of valid info to move into the background section. Also, please do not revert articles while a discussion is still being held here, thank you. --From Andoria with Love 21:23, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Who do you think you are? I moved no valid infos, I improved what has been given before. If you don't have any concrete criticism then this is revert vandalism. You have ten minutes to find something or I change it back... --Porthos 21:30, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, now I can protect the page. In the meantime, read the discussion at the bottom of this page. --From Andoria with Love 21:32, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That's not the appropriate way. Not I have to defend what I wrote, you have to prove me wrong. As long as you do not have any concrete criticism, this is an irregular revert. --Porthos 21:47, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

(Take a look at the notes I made at the bottom of the page Porthos, your idea can still be put on your user page.) I know what you feel, as I had something like this happen before. It may take time, but you'll eventually understand why items like this aren't used. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:33, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

To further explain why the 'Size discussion' item was removed. A majority of this information is speculation based on visual fact. I did this exact same thing in Template:ShipClass (But mainly with interior sets and the model), which caused a major discussion. Speculation like the size comparison is best left to Background Information (But in a smaller, summarized state). Also, if you look at other articles for starships, you'll notice that items like 'size comparison' aren't used (See Template:ShipClass, an excellent starship article). The Lakota variant is mentioned, but it's merged into the article and not 'standing out', like the above article. It doesn't also include 'extensive' analysis based on speculation. Hope this helps ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:24, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Enzo. My apologies for not discussing things more clearly, but I am not in the best physical (and as a result, mental) health at the moment. :( --From Andoria with Love 21:27, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No problem, glad to have helped (Hope you get well soon though!). Additionally, Porthos, your notes are quite intriguing. If you feel like doing so, you are more than welcome to put your ideas into your user page where personal opinion is welcome ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:30, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will try. :) --From Andoria with Love 22:11, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

There is no speculation. All of this is clearly visible on screen and this "problem" (if you call it so) of the Oberth is well known, I just wrote it down. And I put it as short as possible (without being imprecise) at the background section as you suggested. That there is no such comparison at Template:ShipClass is caused by the simple fact that there are no such "problems" with that class. If there were there would have to be such a section, without it it wouldn't be a FA. Find a mistake in what I wrote and we can talk, but I can't take this answer as serious. (Btw: this text is part of the German article for months and nobody there complained, even our "expert" {an admin btw.} for this found no mistake) --Porthos 21:42, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Porthos, you need keep your attitude in check. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss your opinion in a cool, collected manner, not to blatantly label the other opinions as wrong. Please remember this when commenting in the future. --From Andoria with Love 21:49, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The model that was designed for ST3 and the official specifications that were released for it at the time of the movie, as well as later specifications that Probert released around the 1st season of TNG (which corrolated with the original specs) give the overall length of the Grissom to be 395 feet (or 120m), which is actually what should be on the page, as those were the "official" specs. Any comparison outside of that range should simply be noted as an fx error and left in the background information-- because yes, there have been some errors in sizing, notably between the Galaxy and Oberth, but also between the Galaxy and the Constellation, Klingon BoP, and D'Deridex. Unless someone actually made a conscious effort on screen or off to note that there are multiple sized designs for the Oberth class, we shouldn't assume that there are-- and from what I am reading above, there is a lot of assuming there. Otherwise, I really don't see how making the background section of the Oberth class larger than the main as an efficient use of information. It would, however, be beneficial if we linked the page to the ex-astris-scientia article for further readings on the subject, rather than rehashing it when the work has already been done for us. Above all, numbers are concrete, fx errors fluctuate. Keep that in mind. --Alan del Beccio 01:19, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Ex-Astris-Scientia has some excellent discussions on starship size conflicts. Instead of having a huge article in the Background Information, the Oberth article should be linked instead. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 14:12, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I want to avoid. This has to be analysed here, not somewhere outside. If we start this, we can say "hey, why creating articles, someone wrote it somewhere (e.g. Wikipedia) down, just make an external link". That's not the purpose of MA. Concerning screen evidence: if we just ignore what we see on screen, a lot of things (facts) can be changed because someone says "hey, that's just a mistake". If someone of the production staff says "the Klingon BoP is 200m long" because he mistook something that has been said from another prod. guy, we change the article to this? Ignoring the fact that we clearly saw two different models, the 110m and the 300+ m (but never a 200m)? No, we don't. We write down what we see on screen, as long as it is explainable (from inside the universe). That's what I did. Show me that you can do it better. --Porthos 23:17, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

We already did. There is only ONE size Oberth-- no factual dialog or diagrams or background information exists to prove otherwise. The EXACT SAME MODEL from square one was used to the bitter end, a model that was specifically defined as being 120 meters in length. We are not here to critique to competence of the FX editors-- THAT is not the purpose of MA -- we are here to support what is described as canon. --Alan del Beccio 06:29, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

There's also no dialog that says that there are two versions of the Klingon BOP (with obvious differences in dimensions), but we have this and this as screen evidence (the same models too). It's exactly the same like this and this. Up to now, you have no counter-evidence from the in-universe perspective. And as long as you don't find this, I have the right to add this. --Porthos 18:10, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to find any reasoning against including speculation. If they did not mention something about the class, then there is no reason we should include the information. Which is what you are attempting to do. Therefore, the same answer applies as before-- 'We are not here to critique to competence of the FX editors-- THAT is not the purpose of MA -- we are here to support what is described as canon...' nor create speculation from their errors. For that very reason we no longer have "nitpicks" in episode pages or their background-- because we are not here to critique the writers. --Alan del Beccio 02:18, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ok, lets clear a more simple question first: the perspective. Normally, we write the main text from inside the Trek universe, but the background stuff from the Meta-Trek (our) universe. What has happened here is that both collides: we have, like Porthos said, the same case like with B'rel and K'Vort, but we do not know if maybe the different persons that were responsible for the different appearances really wanted what we see or if it is just some misunderstanding (the series had other FX artists than ST3 and ST3 had [likely because of the timespan] other ones than ST7). In case of the BoPs we know it was intended to be so, so the on-canon perspective fits. In this case we don't know what was intended (or only for ST3), so if it is treated like maybe-canon and dealt with in the background section it will give the readers all informations they need. The EAS link will be a good supplement to this. So finally, we have to clear the question how this should be written for the background section, this is the problem that should be solved now.

@Gvsualan: Don't mix up nitpicks and observations. If we write a note about the fact that Picard has a bald head on the academy picture from Nemesis, but not in his memories in "Tapestry", this is an observation. If we say this is an error, it becomes a nitpick. And to add observations about possible contradictory info as background (footnotes) is accepted here. The rest read above. --Memory 22:57, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You may also recall me saying: "Any comparison outside of that range should simply be noted as an f/x error and left in the background information." Making an issue out of f/x errors in such a way that one begins to create speculative ship and crew sizes to justify the errors goes beyond the realm of observation and into the realm of nitpicking. Yes-- there are a size issues here, but it is also a fact that there are size issues with the Enterprise-D as well, as I mentioned in numerous references above, but I don't recall any conversations regarding the E-D's/Galaxies size issues anywhere on M/A. What's not to say the E-D was incorrectly scaled to the Oberth and not the other way around? Nothing. So why assume the Oberth is scaled wrong and not the E-D? Or both? Since both ships were given fairly "official" dimensions, it is quite clear that it is a sizing issue with one or both, hence, as you say, it becomes an observation. But to critique something to the point that you are making up data, then you are nitpicking. As for the BoP scenario, as least (or unfortunately), we have the comfort (or inconvenience)of knowing that 3 class variations of that model exist to somewhat justify the size variations, something that can only be assumed in the case with the Oberth. But therein lies the problem: assumption; creating conflict in a situation that can be, and should be, explained with the ease of simply saying "there have been many f/x error in the utilization of this model." --Alan del Beccio 14:13, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That's the point "perspective" I've been talking about. If you say it is an error, you're saying this from the Meta-Trek perspective (and by the way: nobody here has a proof that it is an error from that perspective. Or can anybody cite a f/x department member saying "we made an error"?). But from the in-perspective it could really be a big-sized (or small-sized) version. This isn't possible with the Ent-D/E because their size is determined and correctly used 98% the time they appear on screen. And one specific ship like the Ent-D can't change it's size from episode to episode (in-perspective), so the errors (Meta-Trek) are really clear definable as those. That isn't valid for the mentioned Oberth's because they appear only one time, so there is no other comparison to prove it an error. I don't think that data has been made up, EAS observed similar differences and the dimensions mentioned above seem to be quite good researched. That doesn't means that we should write something with the length of the EAS article, but we have to show the possibilities concerning this situation (I call it "situation" because "error" is an assumption too), and also the probably differing sizes and purposes. The crew size assumption can be removed, but everybody can rewrite something if he thinks that such a sentence is too much, so that's not the point. On the other hand, it is accepted to add longer paragraphs about potential contradictory info, like it happened on James T. Kirk concerning the academy rank issue (and on other pages). Just writing "it's an error" in these cases would not fit the purpose of MA as the definite resource for all facts, because these "situations" are important facts too and have to be handled according to our in-universe POV. If something like the Kirk or this issue is really dizzying, it is the regular way to write it as background information, and this has been proposed here. (This is going to make the page too long, so I started at the left again.) --Memory 20:03, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for a revised (and shortened) version of Porthos' information. Perhaps we can start off the section the way Porthos starts it off, but say something like "from a visual perspective, one might assume there are three variants in the class" and briefly discuss the size variances of each "type" in the class and how this may be an f/x error. The background section itself, however, should not be divided into further sections and the unconfirmed measurement info should be left out. Also, the length should stay at 120m, since that is the "official" length, and the background should emphasize that, since none of this was in dialogue, it is all speculation. But the article should focus on what was established (and later confirmed) by Probert, as Alan stated above. --From Andoria with Love 05:01, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm always a little wary of these size specifications and comparisons, but regarding this issue... The point, I think, is that we want to note obvious mistakes, but do not really want to add unnecessary speculation based on these mistakes. In this case, the differences in size are very obvious, and should be noted somehow. However, unless we have a definite statement that this was not simply an f/x error but a conscious decision, we shouldn't start speculation about size, crew complement and roles of various hypothetical ship types.

My suggestion would be to re-add a condensed section about this to the "background" section of that article, but without too specific speculation, further subsections and the word "canonical" used in a context that is not... ;) I think it would be enough to note that the apparent size of that ship in f/x shots "ranged from about 50% to 200% of the official size" and add small versions of the two images like here. -- Cid Highwind 12:14, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Background rewrite

Rewritten:

The size discussion

There is a lot of confusion about the correct measurements of this class because some sources and internet pages list it as one constant version with a length between 100 and 150 meters. This has been contradicted by at least two appearances, creating the possibility of three different types of this class. These are represented e.g. through the USS Tsiolkovsky, appearing in TNG: "The Naked Now", which can be sized exactly in comparison with a Template:ShipClass starship, giving dimensions of ~265m / ~150m / ~80m (L/B/H) and a mentioned crew complement of 80. This is supported by the model of the SS Vico, that was build with the Tsiolkovsky-sizing in mind so that it's saucer section has four decks (not clearly visible in the episode, but on the model), what is impossible for the 120m type. Unsuitably, the Vico is a canonical representative of this type because its MSD is clearly visible in TNG: "Hero Worship", showing the saucer section with two decks and the whole ship with 13. This gives her the definite dimensions ~115m / ~60m / ~35m (L/B/H), maybe also the "original" idea for the USS Grissom. Finally, there is an Oberth class (maybe the USS Valiant) that appears at the end of Star Trek Generations, escorted by a Template:ShipClass cruiser and a Template:ShipClass starship. These dwarf the Oberth to a size of definitely below 60m in length. It remains unclear if the latter was a mistake of the effects crew of ST7 or an intentionally resizing.

---

Shortened, some things removed, better now? --Porthos 23:42, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'd still remove the word "canonical" (see above), it seems to be nothing but a filler in that place. I also wouldn't use a "gallery" here, but use thumbnail images instead. To not use the images more than once on the page, I would use the Tsiolkovsky one and the one from ST:Generations as thumbnails in this section, and replace the existing appearance of the ST:GEN image with the Vico MSD. Other than that, I think it is better now. -- Cid Highwind 00:57, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If I may intersect: It is possible (I read that in TrekBBS or Flare somewhen) that the Tsiolkovsky was not intented to be an Oberth class at all, very much like the Pegasus was not. They should have been different models which were not built because of budget reasons. -- Kobi - (Talk) 11:39, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I wrote "canonical" to make clear that it is no speculation. It appeared clearly visible on screen, and this makes something canon. The gallery was only a test, the point is that these images belong to the section as the proof for what I wrote. A visual citation. --Porthos 19:36, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Background rewrite II

I've rewritten the above to change some the verbage and to give it more of a vague, but equally informative (and somewhat neutral) view of the issue, without the use of any sort of solid numbers and with clearer introduction to the original size/intentions of the model or without using any sort of specific numbers of possible dimensions for the class. I also used or paraphrased some of Kobi/Cid's remarks, so hopefully you guys don't mind me adding those comments to what I rewrote below. I was a little confused on the Vico explanation, so hopefully my interpretation is relatively accurate. --Alan del Beccio 20:27, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Following the initial design of the USS Grissom for Star Trek III, which established an official length of 120 meters, the apparent size of the Oberth class in f/x shots has varied from range of roughly 50% to 200% of the established size. Although a majority of these errors can be attributed to the f/x editors, the vessels subsequent appearances suggest a class of varying ship-sizes.

During the production of TNG Season 1, Andrew Probert reestablished the Oberth class length at 120 meters. Despite this, the first appearance of the class in "The Naked Now" (TNG), which reused the USS Grissom model and represented the USS Tsiolkovsky, can be comparatively viewed next to the Galaxy class, USS Enterprise-D, and appeared to be significantly larger than the original established size (image, left). It should, however, be noted that the USS Tsiolkovsky was not intended to be an Oberth class at all, much like the later appearance of the USS Pegasus, and that they should have been different models which were not built because of budget reasons.

A later model constructed during TNG Season 5, used to represent the heavily damaged SS Vico in "Hero Worship" (TNG), was designed at a scale that suggested a much larger size than was originally established. In this model, the saucer section has four decks, a number that would otherwise appear not to fit in the original design. The configuration of this design was, however, contradicted by a clearly visible MSD that also appeared in the episode. In this MSD, the Oberth class appeared to a ship with a total of 13 decks, with only two decks in the saucer section. The deck count was partially confirmed in the episodes dialog.

In contrast to the oversized appearance, the (unconfirmed) appearance of USS Valiant that appeared in Star Trek Generations appeared to be much smaller than the original established size. Visual evidence of this is supported during the flyby of the ship, escorted by a Miranda class cruiser and a Nebula class starship, which appear to dwarf the Oberth class (image, right) much more significantly that their established sizes previously suggested.

Final thoughts?

I added the above (and then some) to the page just to give everyone a better feel of the final outcome. It is still a rather large chunk of text, but I think it sufficiently illustrates the point we are wishing to convey. I formatted similarily to the way I formatted a like-named section on the Template:ShipClass page. Hopefully this is more or less to everyone's liking so that we can unprotect the page. It has been 8 days, afterall. --Alan del Beccio 13:43, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I like it - minus the EAS link, which should be placed in a separate "External links" subsection. Also, and I know you didn't change that, Alan: the "References" subsection should be removed and its contents added to the "Appearances" subsection. According to Memory Alpha:Guide to layout, "References" is for outside resources. -- Cid Highwind 13:53, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there were a few other things (like that) that I wanted to do with the page this weekend (hence why I want to push it through the system and unprotect it). Otherwise what you say works for me as long as it works for you. I'm going to unprotect it now... Alan del Beccio 14:26, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, Alan. Nice job. Let's hope Porthos feels the same way. Maybe if we gave him some cheese...? :) --From Andoria with Love 23:03, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I have long ago came to conclusion that size can not be determined by space shots. I tried this with the shuttle craft in "The Doomsday Machine" which we know to be 24 feet long, the Doomsday Machine as I recall the Doomsday Machine was smaller then the Enterprise, which we can see is untrue in other shots. So exterior shots just make for good movie/show, they offer no value to gauge the size of anything. --TOSrules 04:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)