RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,362
Posts: 5,355,767
Members: 24,626
Currently online: 490
Newest member: glmrkills

TrekToday headlines

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 28 2013, 04:46 PM   #136
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post
The real goal of this thread was to find if the Excelsior might be a different size than what has been established, as it affects me going forward with my TM project.The preponderance of evidence may simply make it easier to keep the ship at 467 meters.

I'm going to try scaling the Jein model as best I can and see what I come up with. I'm hoping Mr. Jein used a "corrected" bridge dome size on the model, much as he corrected the window rows to better fit a 467 meter size.
I still think it works a little bit better at one of the larger proposed scales, somewhere upwards of 500 meters or more. My current unsolicited opinion is that it works better at that size and the lower "conservative" scale is at least partially a reaction to nerd rage "How could they build something that much bigger than the Enterprise?!" from the fans.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 06:17 PM   #137
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

I think I'm going to do some simple scalings of the exterior view of the ship against the Enterprise, the Galileo-5 shuttle, and other ships at different sizes. At this point, the only thing that 467 meters has going for it, in my mind, is that it's "official." There's enough evidence for both sizes that I think any is supportable.
__________________
"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
Old August 29 2013, 02:53 AM   #138
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Ok, forgive me for double posting.

These are the images of the Jein Excelsior model I spoke of earlier. Among other things, you can tell it's the Jein model by the fact that the name lettering is straight instead of curved. There are also minor details in paint scheme and such.



That bridge dome is too narrow at any of the supposed sizes, and really too small overall.

This, meanwhile, is the relativistic comparison I mentioned earlier.


This presupposes a 305 meter Enterprise refit and 642 meter Enterprise-D, as well as a 3800 meter diameter for Spacedock.

The two versions of Excelsior shown are scaled to 467 meters and King Daniel's IMO excellent 622 meter size, which fits nicely with the ILM model scaling. The Space Dock doors (assuming they are somewhat accurate) are too small for either version. I'm torn between the two sizes. The details seem to fit better with the Constitution at the smaller size.

Thoughts?
__________________
"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
Old August 29 2013, 04:56 AM   #139
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Regardless of the size of the ship, this actually reminds me of just how absurdly large Spacedock (and subsequent variations as starbases) are. Just in terms of sheer habitable volume, these things are more space colonies than starbases.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 07:36 AM   #140
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post
Thanks, Bob.

Well, I found two pictures of the top of the Jein version. (You can tell by the fact that the name lettering is not curved like the registry.) I'll post them later, but sufficed to say the bridge dome looks pretty much the same as it does on the larger ILM model. Daaaaaamn.

So even though it appears Jein tried to correct the scale of the model to the official 467 meter size via the window rows, the bridge module still keeps the futzed up, tiny shape.

That leaves us with three choices, as I see it:

1) Scale the ship to the ILM window rows, and ignore the bridge module
2) Scale the ship to the Jein window rows, and ignore the bridge module
3) Scale the ship to the official size, and ignore the bridge module

Sigh.

I may go ahead and try the second choice, for fun. It may end up coinciding with 467 meters.
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.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 07:46 AM   #141
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post
The two versions of Excelsior shown are scaled to 467 meters and King Daniel's IMO excellent 622 meter size, which fits nicely with the ILM model scaling. The Space Dock doors (assuming they are somewhat accurate) are too small for either version.
That's the first thing I noticed about that diagram. Seems to me we're better off scaling up Spacedock than trying to make the smaller Excelsior size work, especially since -- IMO -- it's too small even for the Enterprise.

I'm torn between the two sizes. The details seem to fit better with the Constitution at the smaller size.
I don't see how, considering the Excelsior isn't BASED on the Constitution in any way shape or form. When you consider that Enterprise received a refit to its new configuration possibly to keep pace with technology and designs on contemporary vessels -- like the Miranda and Constellation classes -- then it could be that the Constitution is actually the odd man out and some of those structural features are "cropped" on the Connie that would be full-sized on any other vessel.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 08:55 AM   #142
Mario de Monti
Captain
 
Mario de Monti's Avatar
 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post
I'm trying to think, is there ever an instance of the Enterprise-D or another 24th century Starfleet ship accelerating as we used to see on TOS? (TVH also had the bird of prey accelerating.)
Im not sure if you still need another example here, but there is one at the very beginning of TNG when Q chases the Enterprise in "Encounter at Farpoint". Upwards of warp 9.0 they keep accelerating and continuously call out the respective warp factors.

Mario
__________________
"Do you give me attitude, Spock?" - "Im expressing multiple attitudes simultaneously, Sir. To which are you referring?"
Mario de Monti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 09:11 AM   #143
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Mario de Monti wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post
I'm trying to think, is there ever an instance of the Enterprise-D or another 24th century Starfleet ship accelerating as we used to see on TOS? (TVH also had the bird of prey accelerating.)
Im not sure if you still need another example here, but there is one at the very beginning of TNG when Q chases the Enterprise in "Encounter at Farpoint". Upwards of warp 9.0 they keep accelerating and continuously call out the respective warp factors.

Mario
There's also that segment of The Survivors, when the Ent-D chases the phantom Husnock warship away from Rana IV, and it matches their acceleration curve "point for point," as Wesley put it.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 10:06 AM   #144
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

I remember there was a guy (I think Tobias Richter) who built a Spacedock for one of the SOTL calendars and did rather extensive research on the ship sizes. Somewhere over at scifi-meshes I think.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 01:22 PM   #145
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Regardless of the size of the ship, this actually reminds me of just how absurdly large Spacedock (and subsequent variations as starbases) are. Just in terms of sheer habitable volume, these things are more space colonies than starbases.
...or it's not only a facility where to refuel antimatter but actually the facility where they create antimatter (in the "stem" of the "mushroom").

Given the value of antimatter I'd say it makes sense to have such a production facility guarded and also minimize any risk of transporting antimatter to a Federation vessel...

Since there are no constant meteorite or asteroid showers near Earth, it would be rather stupid, IMHO, to trap Federation vessels inside (ST IV anyone? ) - in contrast to deep space station Ticonderoga in Starship Troopers - unless the design is to ensure containment of antimatter loading accidents inside (the people on Earth wouldn't be too happy about such accidents closeby ).

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 03:06 PM   #146
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
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.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
That's the first thing I noticed about that diagram. Seems to me we're better off scaling up Spacedock than trying to make the smaller Excelsior size work, especially since -- IMO -- it's too small even for the Enterprise.
What's funny is, even though I left off the front views because I didn't have them all at hand, the Enterprise refit does fit through those doors, albeit barely... kind of like what we see in the famous scenes in TSFS.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I don't see how, considering the Excelsior isn't BASED on the Constitution in any way shape or form. When you consider that Enterprise received a refit to its new configuration possibly to keep pace with technology and designs on contemporary vessels -- like the Miranda and Constellation classes -- then it could be that the Constitution is actually the odd man out and some of those structural features are "cropped" on the Connie that would be full-sized on any other vessel.
Interesting take... For clarity's sake, there is actually one feature that could be the same on the two... and those are the phaser banks. Scaled to 467 and 305 meters, their size matches somewhat closely. OTOH, there's no reason to think they really need to be the same size.

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Mario de Monti wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post
I'm trying to think, is there ever an instance of the Enterprise-D or another 24th century Starfleet ship accelerating as we used to see on TOS? (TVH also had the bird of prey accelerating.)
Im not sure if you still need another example here, but there is one at the very beginning of TNG when Q chases the Enterprise in "Encounter at Farpoint". Upwards of warp 9.0 they keep accelerating and continuously call out the respective warp factors.

Mario
There's also that segment of The Survivors, when the Ent-D chases the phantom Husnock warship away from Rana IV, and it matches their acceleration curve "point for point," as Wesley put it.
Thanks guys... I guess this doesn't necessarily preclude the no acceleration idea, if traditional warp speeds were also available.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
I remember there was a guy (I think Tobias Richter) who built a Spacedock for one of the SOTL calendars and did rather extensive research on the ship sizes. Somewhere over at scifi-meshes I think.
Hm interesting. Anyone know how to get ahold of him?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Regardless of the size of the ship, this actually reminds me of just how absurdly large Spacedock (and subsequent variations as starbases) are. Just in terms of sheer habitable volume, these things are more space colonies than starbases.
...or it's not only a facility where to refuel antimatter but actually the facility where they create antimatter (in the "stem" of the "mushroom").

Given the value of antimatter I'd say it makes sense to have such a production facility guarded and also minimize any risk of transporting antimatter to a Federation vessel...

Since there are no constant meteorite or asteroid showers near Earth, it would be rather stupid, IMHO, to trap Federation vessels inside (ST IV anyone? ) - in contrast to deep space station Ticonderoga in Starship Troopers - unless the design is to ensure containment of antimatter loading accidents inside (the people on Earth wouldn't be too happy about such accidents closeby ).
Interesting notion - I could definitely see that contributing to why it is built the way it is. I have also always felt the closed-ness of the dock was weird.

Anyone ever notice that the pier the Excelsior is docked at is numbered 34 on the miniature? It's quite visible on the screencap I'm using for my wallpaper. I guess they started numbering the shuttlebays first.

This eveing, I'm going to try to work out some scalings to go with some screenshots that we've seen of Excelsior to other ships... such as from TSFS, TUC, and Next Gen... and maybe DS9 battle scenes too.
__________________
"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
Old August 29 2013, 04:26 PM   #147
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post
What's funny is, even though I left off the front views because I didn't have them all at hand, the Enterprise refit does fit through those doors, albeit barely... kind of like what we see in the famous scenes in TSFS.
When the doors are all the way open, the Enterprise has ample clearance on both sides. It's only during the hijacking that the clearance seems more narrow, but at that point the doors don't open all the way before Enterprise passes through them.

Interesting take... For clarity's sake, there is actually one feature that could be the same on the two... and those are the phaser banks. Scaled to 467 and 305 meters, their size matches somewhat closely. OTOH, there's no reason to think they really need to be the same size.
And at least one reason to think they wouldn't: If Excelsior is being designed for a totally different role than the Enterprise, then those might be a totally new class of phaser weapons larger than anything ever mounted on a starship before. This might give you a less jarring progression towards the phaser strips on the Enterprise-C.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 04:30 PM   #148
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

RCS thrusters could also be used as a scaling tool. Plus, if the Excelsior has any docking rings for the travel pods, those are guaranteed to be identically sized, for obvious reasons. Windows may also be a tell, as the Excelsior has both circular and long rounded-edge windows, just like Enterprise. It is not outside the realm of reason to surmise that windows should be of a standard size across all Fed starships, at least of that era. They appeared bigger starting with the E-C, IIRC.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 04:38 PM   #149
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor, I would exercise great caution before using DS9 screenshots to help scale the Excelsior. The scaling on the movie era ships in TNG/DS9/VOY got a little wonky with oversized versions. The only reason I would consider using the TNG Excelsiors is because, AFAIK, all the shots of them came from the initial library that ILM filmed for Encounter at Farpoint, so I would expect some consistency. Now whether ILM had the scale of the Enterprise-D correct with what came later is another matter -- I think the creation of the ten-forward set led to a retroactive adjustment to scale, so make sure you are using the "pre ten-forward" scale if you do.
__________________
I was wondering why the people who would never dream of laughing at a blind or a crippled man would laugh at a moron? - Charly Gordon
Workbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 04:41 PM   #150
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
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!
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
excelsior, uss excelsior

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.