View Single Post
Old November 18 2013, 11:33 PM   #470
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It's stuff like this that makes the internet so fantastically awesome.

So... does anyone know if Mike Cochrane has an online presence?
Agreed, and I would love to know the answer to that question as well.

zDarby wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post

Hm some interesting notions there. Regarding the former, what would you suppose the limiting factor to be?
Yeah. Not sure on that one. It can't be spacedock: thats beam, not length or draft. It's probably not the shipyards, unless there's some distance they have trouble beaming material to, which doesn't make much sense. What ever it is has to be there since the 2280s...Or whenever Excelsior was commissioned.

Maybe there's a civilian facility so useful to Star Fleet they're willing to cater to it's size? ...I don't really like this solution.

The most reasonable thought I've had was the warp fields themselves where hard to make larger than 650 meters or so. Not sure if this really makes much sense either. But, then, what in warp physics really does?
Heh, you're right, there's no single elegant solution, is there? Maybe the warp field is proportional to the size of the dilithium crystal. Or somethin.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
That's very awesome Maurice for talking to Bill George and WOW welcome to the boards Bill George!

Maurice wrote: View Post
bgeorge wrote:
(via IM)...The only common factor that you could use between the models would be the size of the round port holes assuming they are a standard size. On the Enterprise they were about 3/8th of an inch and on the Excelsior they were like a sixteenth or less.
Just a rough estimate- this would put the scaling of the physical Excelsior model (1/16" porthole) to be 1/6th of the physical Enterprise model (6/16" porthole). How long were the two physical models?
The refit is 8 feet and the Excelsior is 7.5 feet.

See if you agree with my math...

refit - 8 foot
Excelsior - 7.5 foot

refit - 6/16 porthole = .375
Excelsior - 1/16 porthole = .0625

To bring them on par by accounting for the relative model sizes:

8/7.5 = 1.067
1.067*.0625 = .067

Finding the size difference once model size isn't an issue:

.375/.067 = 5.6

So the Excelsior should be 5.6 times the Enterprise's length if we go by the portholes.

Evaluating the official 305 meter refit length:

305 meters * 5.6 = 1708 meter Excelsior length

Crap in a hat.

There's also something I've noticed about the windows on the Excelsior vs. the Enterprise-B version of the secondary hull. I don't think they're the same, to the extent that I think the deck alignment would be different. I'll provide some graphics for evaluation later. I really don't want to redo these freaking deck alignments again.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote