King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:
There's a further possibility, albeit one that requires completely ignoring the MSD at the back of the Enterprise-B bridge - wider deck spacings. Scale it to the tiny bridge module (I think I worked out 777m) and add gaps between decks for machinery etc, while still lining up with window rows. It's how the new movie Enterprise is arranged, going by the 725m size and atrium set, which works out a perfect match for the saucer-rim windows.
Thanks for the suggestion, King.
I might try all the scaling options and compare side by side, for fun. What's interesting about what I did above, is that I assumed the 622 Excelsior
would feel too big next too everything, the D in particular... but actually it doesn't. The bridge dome doesn't actually bother me that much... especially given the ever-changing bridge dome and other details on the TOS Enterprise
. I can ignore it and pretend it's round like the Constitution
refit if I really must.
I think someone (maybe Bernd Schneider) once estimated based on Drexler's Enterprise-
B cutaway to have proper deck thickness she would need to be in the 700 meter range. I actually forgot to ask you, how'd you end up with 622 meters for Excelsior
before? Also, what do you estimate the deck heights and thickness on the new Enterprise
to be, in your reference image you made?
If I scale the Excelsior
up to 777, I'm going to end up scaling up the original Enterprise
and refit too. I can feel it.
I'll have to go back and double check, but IIRC the 622m Excelsior comes from scaling up the Generations MSD until the decks were 8ft tall (and ignoring the Enterprise-B nacelle fins when measuring, of course)
On the new Enterprise, I scaled the corridors at 8ft tall (which may be an few inches off, since the scale on the set plans is illegibly small), and with the space between decks, it may be the first ship in Trek history to accomodate all the steps and complex ceilings that Trek set designers are so fond of!