Length of DY-100 SS Botany Bay

[Proper]

OK, I'm trying to determine what I thought would be a relatively easy thing: the length of the DY-100 SS Botany Bay. I quickly found 6 different sources and each one gives a different dimension. Why the discrepancy? One source states 80m and another states 140m! :eek

Here are the various lengths given depending on the source:

• 80m
• 100m
• 104m
• 106m
• 114m
• 140m

Sources:
Daystrom Institute Technical Library a Star Trek website
Pre-Federation Database - DY-100 Class
DY-100
Ex Astris Scientia - Earth Ship Classes
DY-100 class information - The Full Wiki
DY class - Star Trek Expanded Universe - Fan fiction, RPG, fan films


If the photo attached is an indication, and the E is 947' then the most likely correct length of the BB I think is 100m or about 328'. This also takes into account that the BB is in front of the E at a relatively close proximity; although with a fairly wide angle shot like this one it shouldn't affect scale between the 2 vessels very much.

 

[-... . .- --..]

Do you want to know the length of the studio scale miniature Botany Bay? If so, you're in the right place, although I don't know the answer.

If you want to know the length of the real Botany Bay, well, I hate to be the one to break it to you but there was no real DY-100 SS Botany Bay.

It's only a model...

 

[Commander Max]

Studio scale model is about 4'.
Unless you mic up the original model, there is no way to get a truly accurate measurement. I can tell you the guys that made that model could have cared less about the actual length. As long as it looked good on camera.

No need to stress over the lengths of a model. Keep things simple and make what makes you happy. In the end that's all that matters.

 

[Proper]

Do you want to know the length of the studio scale miniature Botany Bay? If so, you're in the right place, although I don't know the answer.

If you want to know the length of the real Botany Bay, well, I hate to be the one to break it to you but there was no real DY-100 SS Botany Bay. It's only a model...

:confused

The studio model is 43". My post made reference to a lot of figures given in meters. This should suggest that I was referring to the "real" BB; which is/was real since it carried several dozen super-men and -women aboard. :cheers

 

[-... . .- --..]

The studio model is 43". My post made reference to a lot of figures given in meters. This should suggest that I was referring to the "real" BB; which is/was real since it carried several dozen super-men and -women aboard. :cheers

:lol

Well, if that's what you really want, you are most definitely posting in the wrong forum. Maybe even the wrong board.

For the record, this is the Studio Scale Modeling Forum. RTFM!

 

[Proper]

It was a simple question to establish scale.

 

[-... . .- --..]

It was a simple question to establish scale.

Of course, it's such an important question that you had to crosspost the exact same message to REL's 1/350 Botany Bay thread in the General Modeling Forum, right?

Perhaps you're new to this, but either way, crossposting a message to multiple forums because you're unsure where it belongs is considered a kind of spamming.

Do you believe your quest for information on the size of the "real" Botany Bay is best-served by your spamming of our community with multiple copies of the same off-topic message?

 

[Proper]

Of course, it's such an important question that you had to crosspost the exact same message to REL's 1/350 Botany Bay thread in the General Modeling Forum, right?

Perhaps you're new to this, but either way, crossposting a message to multiple forums because you're unsure where it belongs is considered a kind of spamming.

Do you believe your quest for information on the size of the "real" Botany Bay is best-served by your spamming of our community with multiple copies of the same off-topic message?

Thanks for you help, dash-dot. There's an old saying: 'If you can't say something nice [or in this case, helpful]...'

Sounds like you're having a very bad day. Good luck with that.

 

[Proper]

Studio scale model is about 4'.
Unless you mic up the original model, there is no way to get a truly accurate measurement. I can tell you the guys that made that model could have cared less about the actual length. As long as it looked good on camera.

No need to stress over the lengths of a model. Keep things simple and make what makes you happy. In the end that's all that matters.

Atemylunch, the reason I was asking is because I want to establish a correct size for the BB as it would relate next to my MR Enterprise which is exactly 1:350.

Actually, I think I figured it out based on the 43" studio model that was filmed next to the 135" (11.25') Enterprise. That ratio would put the size of the "real" BB at 301.63' or just under 92m.

That means that a BB to be in scale with the 33" studio model E (1:350) should be about 10.5 inches long.

In case anybody else with a 1:350 E cares.... :confused

 

[Commander Max]

Your trying to establish something that you really can't establish.
It's like trying to get a model absolutely accurate. You can't, the only way to have a truly accurate model is to own the original. Even if you place the original in rubber there is still changes that occur with the casting process. Keep in mind everybody that does this stuff is going to have a different interpretation(for any number of reasons) of what they see.

When I did the Botany Bay, I took the pics of the SSM and sized them to the graphs in the pics. From there I would see what numbers the pics would give me. Then I would alter the numbers to make things easier to process. Such as-
If I'm taking a measurement and the pics tell me the number is 1.9896" I would round it up to 2". Another thing I do when creating a 3d model, is keep in mind what they would have used when the created the model.

The forward part of the BB looked like an octagonal banister post. So I derived the rest of the model from there(it wasn't hard).

Now like everything else I've done I'm not claiming absolute accuracy, only that it looks good. That is what the pros do.

In the ST world guys are always wanting accuracy, the people that made the show really haven't lived up to the fans expectations. So my advice is the same.

Make something that, "MAKES YOU HAPPY!!!!"*




*In reality most people could care less, don't stress yourself over this stuff. It's not worth it(I speak from a great deal of experience).

 

[Proper]

Your trying to establish something that you really can't establish.
It's like trying to get a model absolutely accurate. You can't, the only way to have a truly accurate model is to own the original. Even if you place the original in rubber there is still changes that occur with the casting process. Keep in mind everybody that does this stuff is going to have a different interpretation(for any number of reasons) of what they see.

When I did the Botany Bay, I took the pics of the SSM and sized them to the graphs in the pics. From there I would see what numbers the pics would give me. Then I would alter the numbers to make things easier to process. Such as-
If I'm taking a measurement and the pics tell me the number is 1.9896" I would round it up to 2". Another thing I do when creating a 3d model, is keep in mind what they would have used when the created the model.

The forward part of the BB looked like an octagonal banister post. So I derived the rest of the model from there(it wasn't hard).

Now like everything else I've done I'm not claiming absolute accuracy, only that it looks good. That is what the pros do.

In the ST world guys are always wanting accuracy, the people that made the show really haven't lived up to the fans expectations. So my advice is the same.

Make something that, "MAKES YOU HAPPY!!!!"*

*In reality most people could care less, don't stress yourself over this stuff. It's not worth it(I speak from a great deal of experience).

Thanks for your input, ATM. I understand your experience and expertise. Unfortunately, I'm not in any position to scratch-build anything; unless I whittle it out of a soft piece of wood with a simple pocket knife. The extent of my building capabilities currently lie within a simple kit, such as the small Fantastic Plastic Botany Bay. And even here I don't have any airbrushing equipment or skills. Still, I'm considering giving the 12-piece kit a try.

Forgive me if I'm pushing out of topic here as far as "studio scale" replicas go. But the 1:350 MR E "studio scale" model has made an extensive name for itself within this forum and so I thought since the Fantastic Plastic BB is supposed to be to this scale (1:350) I wanted to confirm this.

Believe me, I realize that there is no "absolutely accurate" scale model of an original. But it's a matter of degree. I'm not after hyper-perfection.

But I still think my rationale for establishing a roughly accurate scale of the BB is sound:

Assuming that the BB studio model that was filmed together with and next to the 135" (11.25') E is indeed 43" then that provides the answer; for a BB to be in scale with the 32.46" MR E at 1:350 it should be about 10-3/8 inches long. If the Fantastic Plastic BB model is this length then its claim of 1:350 should be accurate--within a reasonable margin of error of +/- of 1/4" or so--and I'm satisfied. And it follows that if we accept Jefferies' dimension of the "real" E at 947' long then that would put the size of his "real" BB at 301.63'.

None of this stuff really amounts to a hill of beans except to someone (like me) who would like to display the E and the BB together as a recreation of the classic scene of "Space Seed." Then, scale does mean something:

 

[Commander Max]

Unfortunately your in the wrong section to establish a actual(if it was real) length. This is the studio scale model section, you might have better luck on other boards(like Starship Modeler, and Hobbytalk).

Your making a few mistakes here. One your making absolute numbers from an image that you really can't take numbers from. The shot is in perspective(it's distorted), and the BB is in front of the E(that's another problem). It's length corresponds to the 2nd hull of the E. You can't take a good measurement from the overall length of the E. You have to go with what is closest, even then it's only a guess. Plus your not using the same image I did to derive the size.
So there is no way we are are going to have the same number. And your using fan info as an absolute. Most of us that have done this stuff use other sources, because the fan info isn't always reliable. You can't assume it is, you'll just look like a stereotype Trekkie if you do.

Like I tried to explain before I use other references, like something I don't think you have. The pics of the original model with a dimensioned card next to the model. That's your best bet, then do the math it's that simple.

 

[Proper]

OK, forget the "real" size. What about the studio scale model, is it not supposed to be 43" and is the 1/2 scale model of that from Atomic City not 21.5"?

 

[Commander Max]

A friend came to the same length I did, four feet.
We were both working on the BB independently.
I have more confidence in 4' because somebody else came to the same conclusion.

As far as the Atomic city model goes, Scott was quite adamant about the then length. He said he got it off the original, bla, bla. It's really quite insulting and annoying having somebody in his position saying that when his opinion is no better than any of ours. And he is trying to sell a model, which should tell you everything. Besides the pics of that model didn't quite match the SS model(at least the pics I have), which I found confusing.

You have to take things in this hobby with a grain of salt. That's why you should do what makes 'you' happy. In the end that's all that is important.

 

[Proper]

A friend came to the same length I did, four feet.
We were both working on the BB independently.
I have more confidence in 4' because somebody else came to the same conclusion.

As far as the Atomic city model goes, Scott was quite adamant about the then length. He said he got it off the original, bla, bla. It's really quite insulting and annoying having somebody in his position saying that when his opinion is no better than any of ours. And he is trying to sell a model, which should tell you everything. Besides the pics of that model didn't quite match the SS model(at least the pics I have), which I found confusing.

Well, I don't know the technology behind 'dimensioned cards' or things like that--I have enough trouble figuring out the use of a smart phone and helping my 13-year old with his pre-Algebra.

But I do understand old school ratios and simple arithmetic. And if the original Botany Bay was between 43" and 48" as it perched next to the 135" E in front of the blue screen at Paramount, then a 1:350 model of her ought to fall somewhere between 10-3/8" and 11-1/2" in length.

So, if the "real" E is 947', a "real" BB would be 301' - 335'. So, my initial assertion in my opening post of about 100m (328') would be correct.

At least that's something to have established for what it's worth... 2 cents

 

[star-art]

Scott had access to the studio model when it was in Greg Jein's shop. He took photos of it with a ruler in them for reference. Years later I used those photos to recreate the BB in Rhino. This was used to make blueprints for Scott's model. I also came to the conclusion it was less than 4 feet long. I don't know where the 43 inch figure came from, but that is much closer to what I came up with. The greeblies we found for it seem to fit pretty well based on what I came up with as well. FWIW. . .

 

[CaptCBoard]

Yes, it is true. I had access to the actual filming model of the Botany Bay when it came into Greg Jein's shop-- where I was working. I shot photos of the model with a measuring tape for scale reference.

As for the photos...

These are scans of physical photos-- no digital camera back then and I think these were shot with one of those single-use cameras...

I can't remember exactly when this was, but a clue is seen in the top photo. Greg had just started sculpting the Romulan ship for NextGen, which is seen at the top of that photo. When the Botany Bay came to the shop for restoration, it was in pretty bad shape. I don't know what Greg did to it, though. The model came in just as I was leaving for another job.

I'm not posting this to dispute what Max has worked out. He said there was something about the photos I used that didn't seem right, so here they are for anyone to evaluate. The kit I make is based on these photos (and all the others I have) and as such is 21.5 inches long. Anyone going to the trouble of making a kit of something has to go with the information they feel the most comfortable with and there will always be disputes.

Scott

 

[Proper]

Yes, it is true. I had access to the actual filming model of the Botany Bay when it came into Greg Jein's shop-- where I was working. I shot photos of the model with a measuring tape for scale reference.

As for the photos...

I'm not posting this to dispute what Max has worked out. He said there was something about the photos I used that didn't seem right, so here they are for anyone to evaluate. The kit I make is based on these photos (and all the others I have) and as such is 21.5 inches long. Anyone going to the trouble of making a kit of something has to go with the information they feel the most comfortable with and there will always be disputes.

Scott

Thanks very much, Scott! It's hard to dispute photographic evidence with a tape measure--that oft elusive contraption is very handy to have around. These are wonderful reference pics of the studio model. Thanks again for posting them! This really answers my burning scale question, now knowing the studio Botany Bay was/is 43" (+/- a small fraction of an inch) together with the 135" Enterprise. (That means that an accurate 1:350 Botany Bay should be 10.34" or 10-11/32" long. And the "real" one would be 301.58' or 92 meters.)

 

[Proper]

Scott, the antenna panels look completely solid in these photos, with no mesh indication at all visible. I guess the model was never slated for a close-up. Was there any evidence of what they're made of?

 

[Commander Max]

I can see where I made a mistake, I based the model on a 4" dimension on the octagonal post below the sail(it's much easier to work with whole numbers). Which is actually 3.75"(which is called 4" in construction circles)which I didn't account for(it's an easy mistake to make). It would make my model's body length in SS 3'-8.932"(not including back grebles or screens) or 44.9". I get 10.8" in 350 scale. That's close. But keep in mind something else, the model I made isn't 12" long. That's the advertised length because it's close and people understand the number. And it's a model nobody is going to get the length exact. Plus the model I designed isn't the same dimension as the model produced. The production process shrinks the model. But I don't have a production model to tell you how much it shrunk.

So I will call the 350 scale DY class I designed a DY-200 class(@317.21').
I defiantly got an extra inch in the forward section, my model comes out at 16". According to Scott's pics it comes out to 15". But my sail is right on(about 7.5"). I will alter the model accordingly for my SS BB.

The part I found confusing was Scott's final model, I've never seen the pics he posted before. Otherwise I would have used them. But that's how this hobby goes, and it's biggest frustration.

But my model is done, Proper your to late to the table. I'm not going to bother to make another 350 BB. The kit is out there and done, you can't undue that. I will tell you your attitude is why guys like me keep quiet about this stuff. And there are things out there that would blow your mind.