I suppose the next step is to contact Nilo Rodis (regarding the chart) and Mike Cochrane (regarding the blueprints).
Yep. I don't suppose anyone knows them?
Great point. I see no reason that the Enterprise
portholes need be the same size.
Meanwhile, I think I have a new problem of sorts. As I alluded to earlier, I think the decks on the secondary hull of the Excelsior
-B are different. Like, completely different.
Among other things, the short row at the aft curve of the secondary hull behind the lower stripe of the pennant on Excelsior
seems to be completely be missing from the Enterprise-
B. The row below the pennant on the B appears to correspond to the row below the missing row from Excelsior
. Beyond this, all windows appear to be differently sized and located. The only windows that appear to me to actually be the same are the ones on the flattop edge around the top.
Here is the deck alignment for the secondary hull I derived from the detailed Enterprise
-B drawings upthread:
As you can see comparing to the Enterprise
-B photo above, this drawing is pretty spot-on accurate. I don't question the accuracy of this, at least according to the way the windows are on the B/Lakota
Of course, lest we forget my study of the damage to the protrustions on the secondary hull from an earlier post
This of course leaves us with a discrepancy between apparent window size on the rest of the secondary hull. We could decide that the protrusions have shorter decks that somehow connect to the decks in the main body. If those shorter decks are actually 2.65 meters tall as it appears based on Chekov's height, the ship is about 589 meters long. If those decks are actually 9.5 foot decks to match the saucer, then the ship is 641 meters long. If they're only 9 feet, we get 609 meters long. Tantalizing close, eh?
The closest we ever get to a dead-on side view of the
is in TSFS when the Enterprise
is entering spacedock:
Granted, having to scale it up this much increases the margin of error, but one can find 17 decks here, compared to the 15.5 decks derived from the Enterprise-
B drawing above.
Compare this, then, to this opening shot from TUC, which is not quite a horizontally straight quarter front shot:
I've aligned the decks horizontally even, trying to match the aft edge of the secondary hull. Here we find 16 decks.
So we seem to know the story of the two ships, and those stories seem to be different. Since the external appearance of the two secondary hulls is so different, it may be no problem to accept that the interior of a standard Excelsior
is quite different from a Enterprise-B/Lakota
variant. However, this now gives me the problem of figuring out exactly how many decks there really are in the Excelsior
secondary hull. Not quite square one, but kinda sorta. The one piece of good news is that we can keep the 9.5 foot alignments from the saucer, and potentially end up using the same deck heights in the secondary hull. I will play around with that next.
Sigh. If this ain't a labor of love I don't know what is.
Since we keep tiptoeing around the same vicinity, it may be advantageous for my efforts to simply decide that the size the model represents is "really" around 2000 feet instead of around 1500 feet, and not chain myself so precisely with established deck heights.
Some interesting math I discovered. Supposedly the Excelsior
was intended to be 1.5 the Enterprise
's 1000 foot length, which, after the model was completed, ended up being 1532.15 feet "officially."
1532.15 ft/1500 ft = 1.02143 variance
2000 ft * 1.02143 = 2042.86 feet = 622.67 meters