Nob Akimoto wrote:
So here's a scaled image
of that using a 775m E-E and a 598m Lakota
and a 120m Defiant
Accounting for camera angles, I actually think it's pretty close to the comparisons of the Defiant
both in the FC Battle
and "Paradise Lost"
The latter obviously has to include the distance of the ships into the scaling.
So maybe we've been getting it wrong all along. It wasn't the Defiant
scale being off! Everything else was being given wrong dimensions!
And yes, that's Char Aznable's custom Defiant
. (I needed to colorize it so it'd actually show up at that resolution).
Fascinating! Thanks for saving me from doing that.
Interestingly, referencing this image
of the dying Sitak
and the Defiant
, granted that there is questionable fudgey size there, if the Defiant
appears to be around the OL of the Sitak
. If the Sitak
is about 276 m, the the Defiant
is about 138 meters. Allowing for fudge, that works out pretty well.
Of course, life only gets harder if you assume the Defiant
was flying higher than that above the Lakota
@Praetor - Seems reasonable. Bringing the TMP-E down a little works a little better for the docking port sizing.
Thank you sir! Since you're here, what size was it you ended up sizing the Enterprise
s too in your study? I feel like I'm remarkably close without actually trying to be.
^Nice work. I think this is a reasonable compromise operating under the constraint that all decks are the same height. While I personally disagree with this interpretation, abandoning a set deck height might create so much complexity that estimates are no longer feasible.
I snipped out a bit of what you said, but generally agreed that varied deck heights would be more realistic. However, I'm rather limited in my ability to push further by the reuse of sets and what we've seen in semi-official MSDs onscreen. Besides, I'm okay with a future spacefaring organization going the extra mile for the sake of OCD.
If i had to adopt a constraint, I would go with one set of heights for the primary hull (excluding bridge), another height for the secondary hull decks (or a mixture of both), and whatever the heck fits for the necks. Looking your earlier deck mapping
, both the TOS Enterprise and the refit seem to call for a different deck height for the secondary hull than the saucer.
It's perhaps a bit hard to tell, but I actually have made the saucer decks shorter than the secondary hull decks, neck included. I'm thinking they're 10 ft and 12 ft, respectively, but I haven't done the math to yet prove it. The neck and secondary hull were the most clear areas where I could derive decks for windows for the TOS ship, and by my logic the TMP ship should be remarkably similar to the TOS one. I also felt constrained by how close the saucer-edge windows are together to think that the saucer decks would overall be thinner. The bridge gets to cheat a bit, because it's the bridge. (Also, I'm not sure if anyone is noticed but the TOS Enterprise
does have an 11-deck saucer per TMoST, if you ignore the half-deck under the saucer, which I do.)
My thought is that when the refit occurred, the neck was basically rebuild completely, mostly to facilitate the new torpedo bays, which do get an extra high deck height to make the saucer and engineering hull alignments work out as well as possible. This should also help with putting the uberlarge torpedo bay there.
I also think that with the advent of the integrated SIF truss on Excelsior
, deck heights would become a bit more regular owing to all decks and compartments being more like they are suspended within the overall exoskeleton of the ship, rather than built in and around pressure compartments.
Slightly OT -- Memory Alpha posits that the original scale for the Excelsior was 1.5x the length of the refit enterprise, then later revised up to the 1531'. I wonder, if this is the case, what feature made them increase the length only 31 feet? According to the article, the scale drawing was originally created by Nilo Rodis-Jamero.
Not OT at all... I've read this too. I believe there was some nuance of the Excelsior
model's construction, maybe related to the nacelle length, that caused this. I can't remember where I read that though. And the 1.5x ratio was what I tried to maintain in my previous effort.
Nob Akimoto wrote:
It's worth bearing in mind that you could always have a combination of full decks and half-decks/overhanging decks like the Orlop on an old sailing multi-deck ship. Certain sections probably do have a standardized format, if only because that's what makes the most sense for modularity and refit (I think we see this when the Borg cut out a core sample of the Enterprise in "Q, Who") but that doesn't preclude multi-deck facilities like arboretums, cetecean ops and main engineering.
I'm actually thinking perhaps "outer" sections of some decks would have step downs - particularly on the Enterprise
TOS and refit.
Apologies for the double post -- I just saw this on another board and it brought my thoughts on the TNG vs Movie Era Warp Core / Intermix Chamber to crystal clarity
Now, let's consider the warp-core. We first saw the glowing tower-whatsit in TMP. In TMP, there's no indications whatsoever that the tower was itself the main-reactor. Watch the movie again. It's pretty obvious that the tower is just a conduit. There's a horizontal conduit in TMP too, & the horizontal one doesn't look any different than the vertical one, so the vertical tower doesn't look any more "important" than the horizontal glowing tube. They're just conduits - in TMP, we never actually see the main reactor itself. It's in the secondary hull somewhere, but we never see it.
Fast-forward to TNG. The set designers & art directors for TNG apparently liked the glowing tower-whatsit from the movies (it does look cool), so they put one in engineering on the E-D. Here's where the writing gets sloppy. The TNG-people decided that the glowing tower thing was itself the main reactor, and thus the "warp-core" was born.
Through TOS and the early movies, the Warp Nacelle were where the reactions were happening. The glowing tube in engineering was simply a conduit. When the set was redesigned and repurposed for TNG, that element became the "warp core." This isn't necessarily invalid approach, but my personal feeling is that it was a rationalization to crowbar in a visually cool element for the sake of having something looking cool. From a dramatic point of view, it makes Engineering more interesting if the super powerful and potentially dangerous reactions are happening in that very area. Even if the prior (and IMHO more logical) intent was that those reactions happened out in the nacelles, away from the crew members, and easily ejected should things go amiss. All the more reason I prefer the TMP style conduit.
Great insight, and wholly agreed. My evolving view of Trek tech has more or less decided that this is how things "really" were in-universe, too.
I did notice you put a kind of inverted L shaped kink in the Ent refit intermix chamber. I am curious what the reason was (and forgive me if I missed the explaination, I tried going back a few pages). Was it to accommodate that corridor section seen in TMP? Or to match up the the two diagonal conduits branching out from the back of the forced perspective set? Or something else entirely?
Glad you asked, because I meant to address it earlier. My bad. There are several reasons why I've done it this way, and most of them stem from some of my particular assumptions with regard to the TOS Enterprise
. My thinking is that there's one easily-reconfigured main engine room at the back of the saucer, which tops a proto-TMP style power shaft that was basically blocked off behind walls during TOS. (A few years ago I made a rather crude version of the "not all that different" TOS to TMP version, which can be seen here
.) The L-shape is mostly my attempt to more closely match the two shafts seen in the TMoST drawing that I thought might very well be power conduits. Concurrently, the corridor in TMP never really made me happy, and at the same time I realized that the traditionally accepted TMP cross-section put the horizontal shaft up too high. So, again trying to make TOS-to-TMP a bit less herculean, I tried very hard to retain the same basic arrangement between the two. Generally, my assumption is that everything on the TOS ship is a bit more convoluted and a bit less streamlined and interconnected.
All that said, I'm not 100% settled on the arrangement, but I'm fairly sure that for my purposes the shaft from TMP is, as you mentioned, not really the reactor. Part of my thinking is that Excelsior
was the first large-scale implementation of a non-nacelle reactor paradigm.
The rub is that I've chosen to go with a TMP-style power shaft for Excelsior
, which might suggest that there should be nacelle reactors. I may ultimately go back to having the humpback contain the reactor, or instead have the TMP-style shaft "actually" be a VGR-style core lined with dilithium chips, as has been alluded before. The cosmetic similarities between an Enterprise
reactor shaft and an Excelsior
style would then truly be just cosmetic.
I'm really starting to think the Excelsior
s are going to be 600 meters long for my purposes and these other ships are going to follow suit per my most recent study.