Check out Probert's models, I don't think they've gotten beyond that shuttlecraft, but it's really nice and he hand-signs the boxes which have a nice piece of source art:
http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_STO...IT_Models.html
And the art's available as a really keen print too:
http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_STO...usOutPAGE.html
That piece of art is so much more Trek than the entire "Enterprise" series IMO. Looks like what McQuarrie did for SW, Probert did a little for Trek.
There's some debate about that, one of the early sets of blueprints out there claimed they were the arboretum even though it didn't match the set at all, and others have said the arboretum is on the underside of the ship just like on the Refit 1701/A (the arboretum is DEFINITELY on the underside of the refit, it's what those blue windows are). Anyway, he'd know what those windows are originally for since he personally designed the Ent-D.
Everything I've read says the TOS Enterprise is 289 meters, not 303.
What does it mean to be a "modern" Trekker anyway, now that Berman's ruined that with a cruddy prequel? :p I'm a TNG-era Trekkie first, but the Refit 1701/A is far and away my favorite design. I like the E over the D too, but the D's a much more important character to me. I agree with what you're saying on the Nebula class, that rearrangement of elements looks far better than the bloated lines of the Galaxy-class.
BTW, way to go to the source on that one, good call, it never would have occurred to me for some reason.
No, you're interpolating that statement without proper foundation, Probert says it's a "few" feet longer and you merely assumed that it meant 3. When you say:
there's no actual basis in fact to your statement there, the word "few" in Probert's usage means small in amount but not specific. "Few"'s usage is generally three or more, but it can be even as low as two, or as high as a million if the greater number is significantly higher than a million. 16m is just a few meters longer in comparison to 289m, just 5.5%.
(you know, this highlights one of the reasons I consider myself a Trekkie first and a SW fan second, the ability to discuss this stuff with precision, even when we disagree, it's part of the "science" in science fiction. There's no such aspect to Star Wars since it's pretty light on the science aspect of the science fiction, it's much more space fantasy - like the poor Millennium Falcon being multiple sizes.)
I don't see how you can claim the TOS nacelles are being shown SMALLER in that image when they're physically taller and longer from the tip, plus we know they're also wider and round so they take up even more space.
Again, that's because the refit isn't 3 feet longer, the TOS Enterprise is 289m and the TMP Enterprise is 305m, that's a difference of 16m, which that image is showing.
