RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,201
Posts: 5,436,987
Members: 24,948
Currently online: 581
Newest member: TedCarchidi

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 September 15 2013, 04:52 PM   #211
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

So, I hit the jackpot yesterday.

I stumbled across this site, where the blogger posted some fantastic reference drawings of the Enterprise-B version of the ship which appear to be highly, highly accurate. He doesn't seem to know where they came from He speculates they were model drawings for "Generations," but that doesn't make a ton of sense to me; they look more like the results of an in-depth analysis of the model, maybe around the time she was auctioned off.

Among the gold nuggets present there:



Looks to be completely accurate. Woot. That'll come help in rendering that area. Also confirms the location of the mounting arm inside the pod from below.

The Librarian wrote: View Post
I personally think it's some sort of sensor, possibly connected to the advanced warp drive. While the grill does sort of look like a terrestrial radiator, its ridged nature would actually make it a pretty horrible radiator in space because the ridges would just radiate heat onto each other. The Ambassador retained it in a smaller form, and presumably by the time the Galaxy came around it was once again unnecessary.
Great points and I'm inclined to agree... perhaps these are "flow sensors" of some sort.

The Librarian wrote: View Post
Moving antimatter around would be inconvenient for the horizontal core, unless it's right there in the flat part directly underneath the hump. There's no particular reason it has to be down in the very bottom of the ship, especially since the cut-in takes up so much space (which is why I don't think the deuterium tank is down there either). The matter is less of a problem since it doesn't vaporize the entire ship if something goes wrong and pumping around cryogenic fluids is a relatively mild inconvenience.
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
I'd go for Option 4. The humpback has qualities of the deuterium tanks envisioned for the Enterprise-D, though I'd imagine the antimatter pods to be located in the bow part of the humpback.
Generally, I'm beginning to think that having the warp core in the humpback is an even bigger liability than having a long power transfer conduit.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
But regardless, I think any theory needs to be compatible with this screenshot from ST III, and the images we could see before (didn't we see part of a vertical intermix shaft?)
GREAT CATCH, thank you! I had completely forgotten about this. Previously, I had thought of this shot from TUC that seems to happen aboard the Excelsior, but it's not completely clear.

We see the Excelsior hit with a torpedo and the bridge crew thrown around, then cut back the the Enteprise for Uhura's reaction and see the hull burn of the Excelsior on the Enterprise bridge screen. The next scene is crewmen running down a hallway closing a blast door, and then the engineering room door coming down, but it's unclear whether we are still on the Enterprise or back on Excelsior. I've always assumed Excelsior, simply because the Enterprise wasn't hit immediately afterward. OTOH, it's possible that this is just the result of earlier hits.

To me, regardless whether we saw the Excelsior warp core or not, it doesn't make much sense to me to have a TNG style warp core on the Enterprise but not the Excelsior.

Back to TSFS, we definitely see a divider section in a TMP-style warp core on Excelsior there. If we wanted to, we could pretend it's not "really" a TMP style core, but I think we're still stuck with some form of vertical core component.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
The TOS references in "The Apple" and "The Savage Curtain" only suggested the discarding of the warp nacelles while in "That Which Survives" the ejection of the "engineering core" in the engineering hull seemed to be the solution if all else failed.

On the Excelsior it would appear you could do both if the necessity ever arose. You jettison the humpback matter-antimatter module and/or the warp nacelles.
I have long thought the same thing. The Excelsior's design is actually highly modular.

So I think I've whittled down the contestants to two:

Option One, the Classic:

Advantages: traditional, straightforward, lines up with deflection crystals
Disadvantages: long PTC, doesn't make tons of sense for a TNG-style core

Option Two, the vertical Crazy Eddie:

Advantages: short PTC to engines, potential ease of access for repairs and modernization
Disadvantages: short core height possibly implausible for such a big ship

Option Three, the Sternbach:

Advantages: easily suits the TNG-style core and TMP core, keeps reactor out of the saucer, allows for potential easy upgrades and plausibility via engineering hull chasm
Disadvantages: requires the lower bay to not just be a shuttlebay and convoluted PTC strurcture might negate the shuttlebay altogethe

Surprisingly (especially to myself) I seem to be leaning towards Option Three, but I'm still drawn to the simplicity of Option One.

By the way, I realized in more closely examining some photos of the TSFS vs TUC version of the ship that to properly align with the original (undisputed) deflection crystal, the core actually needs to be shifted forward slightly, like this:


That's not a new image, it just happens to closely match Option Five.

I can't help but feel that getting caught up in a TMP-style vs. TNG-style argument is going to end up being counterproductive. Any resemblances between 2290s and 2360s cores might appear closer than they actually are.

Still, what do we know about the TMP core? We know from Mr. Probert that it was essentially envisioned as a big power transfer conduit, without reactions actually occurring in it. This could tell us that there were reactors either in the nacelles or in the secondary hull somewhere, and the same might apply for Excelsior.

However, Mr. Sternbach postulates on the Voyager's similarly styled core that the whole core is an intermix chamber lined with dilithium, with reactions occurring throughout. It's interesting to think that the TMP-style design might not fully utilized its potential, later being fully fulfilled on Voyager.

I think, also, that during this era hull separation was not considered to be a standard operating procedure, and therefore it would probably be acceptable that the warp core wouldn't work anymore if the ship separated.

So, what are our possibilities?

  1. TMP style warp core in the Enterprise-A and Excelsior, ignoring the reuse of the TNG core, where the TMP core is just a PTC and the reaction happens in a specific, central location not seen onscreen.
  2. TMP style warp core in the Enterprise-A and Excelsior, ignoring the reuse of the TNG core, where the TMP core actually is the intermix chamber, lined with dilithium a la Voyager.
  3. TNG style warp core in the Enterprise-A and Excelsior, indicating a potential shift in technology during this time, possibly pioneered by Excelsior.
  4. TNG resembling warp core in the Enterprise-A and Excelsior that mostly works like the "swirl" core (# 2) but also has a single, central reactor chamber in main engineering.
It's probably worth noting that the engine core of the 80-year-old Hathaway, which was a mothballed contemporary of Excelsior, pretty clearly seems to have a proto-TNG core. (I don't believe we saw the red PTCs leading away from it though.)
__________________
"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 September 15 2013, 05:58 PM   #212
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Here's a question or thought:

The TMP vertical intermix shaft had a physical horizontal shaft connected to it. The TNG vertical intermix shaft (or warp core) in TUC also had a physical shaft connected to it (the way it was filmed, there was only one visible shaft.)

Were there any physical shafts connected to Voyager's warp core?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2013, 06:04 PM   #213
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Supposedly, there were unseen horizontal leads that led to the pylons and nacelles, but they're not seen in either the MSD or on the set itself. There are panels on the pylons that are meant to trace their path.
__________________
"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 September 15 2013, 06:47 PM   #214
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

I have to bring up a question: What is the external structure of the neck for?

Compared to the other starship designs it's rather unusual. The Excelsior design apparently has not only "space-energy/matter sinks" around the warp nacelles (like Enterprise and Reliant) but also covering the entire neck.

I could believe that the objects we see in the neck are the "space-energy field attraction sensors" (usually around the navigational deflector of the TMP Enterprise) and the entire outer neck actually consists of these sinks.

The neck could just mostly be the storage space for deuterium to either fuel the impulse engines above or the M/AM reaction further to the stern.

If you look at the Sternbach option we might be looking at the reaction point between the matter reactants in the neck and the antimatter pods in the humpback.
Of course we'd still have a horizontal intermix shaft.

Then what's that vertical segment we saw in ST III? Possibly a shaft leading to the bottom, powering the transwarp components of the Excelsior in ST III and in the chasm (and Scotty is just leaving this section with the vital transwarp circuits concealed in his pockets).

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

Last edited by Robert Comsol; September 16 2013 at 03:54 PM. Reason: erroneous statement corrected
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 03:52 AM   #215
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post
Supposedly, there were unseen horizontal leads that led to the pylons and nacelles, but they're not seen in either the MSD or on the set itself. There are panels on the pylons that are meant to trace their path.
I guess the leads would be on a different deck of engineering not portrayed by the voyager filming sets. Just trying to line up the differences.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 05:00 AM   #216
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Okay, this isn't based on anything, but I like the idea of a TNG warp core for the Excelsior, seeing as how the warp nacelles share more design elements with the Enterprise D. And in my private continuity, transwarp WAS a success, and became integrated as the new standard in the TNG era.
Workbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 09:53 AM   #217
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Workbee wrote: View Post
And in my private continuity, transwarp WAS a success, and became integrated as the new standard in the TNG era.
Not necessarily that "private". I just went over my TNG materials and back in the late 1980's there was a fanzine that somehow had gotten access to genuine Art Department materials, including sketches of Andrew Probert etc.

Sometimes these looked like a copy of a copy of a copy but there are apparently genuine screen schematics from the bridge (e.g. Picard's command chair schematics) and one of those shows the Enterprise-D on a schematic that reads "transwarp". It's very reminiscent of the transwarp schematics from Shane Johnson's Scott's Guide to the (TMP) Enterprise from ST IV.

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 September 16 2013, 03:05 PM   #218
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

I'm definitely in favor of option 1, with my own personal bias for a dual core, based on the crystal layout.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 03:45 PM   #219
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Speaking of Option 1, why is it that the shaft has to be straight? According to Option 1, the antimatter pods would be just right above the navigational deflector, correct?

Do we have some unwritten trek-no-logical law that says "structures running through angled necks of starships always have to be vertical"?

Why don't we have an angled shaft (running through the neck) that could conveniently lead past the nav deflector and down to the antimmater pods at the bottom of the engineering hull.

As a matter of fact, we do have a hatch structure there (the cover plate for the mounting rod) that could just be the loading hatch for the antimatter pods.

Bob

P.S. Corrected my erroneous observation in post 214. Do we have a good explanation of the gridded structures covering the neck?
__________________
"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

Last edited by Robert Comsol; September 16 2013 at 03:56 PM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 04:42 PM   #220
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
I have to bring up a question: What is the external structure of the neck for?
According to those model blueprints I linked upthread, when the model was built the little things in the recesses were intended to be weapons, but it was later decided (for TUC) they were tractor beam emitters. In "Generations" it looks like a workbee is flying away from the port one on the B, but there's no logical hatch there where it could dock. (However, an airlock would be logical there. It just doesn't fit the detail.)

I've always supposed them to be potential "megaphaser" emplacements to match the Reliant's roll bar units. In my thinking, they could draw power right from the warp engines, but it's very likely that on most ships of the class they were not used, since we never once see them fired. So on most ships, it was probably just an extra place where external-facing hardware could be mounted.

The grills themselves, I don't think we've ever had a logical explanation for. It's worth noting they also appear in lesser form at the base of the "humpback."

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Compared to the other starship designs it's rather unusual. The Excelsior design apparently has not only "space-energy/matter sinks" around the warp nacelles (like Enterprise and Reliant) but also covering the entire neck.

I could believe that the objects we see in the neck are the "space-energy field attraction sensors" (usually around the navigational deflector of the TMP Enterprise) and the entire outer neck actually consists of these sinks.

The neck could just mostly be the storage space for deuterium to either fuel the impulse engines above or the M/AM reaction further to the stern.
An intriguing notion. I'm still not sold on having the neck be tankage - but the idea of some combination of flow sensors and matter intakes (where what I'd previously supposed to be megaphasers was) is rather appealing.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
If you look at the Sternbach option we might be looking at the reaction point between the matter reactants in the neck and the antimatter pods in the humpback. Of course we'd still have a horizontal intermix shaft.

Then what's that vertical segment we saw in ST III? Possibly a shaft leading to the bottom, powering the transwarp components of the Excelsior in ST III and in the chasm (and Scotty is just leaving this section with the vital transwarp circuits concealed in his pockets).
That was indeed was I was kind of thinking with the Sternbach option, although in this version I think I was thinking the reactor would be in the pod, and the pod would provide easy access to 3 of 4 sides of it for service.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
I guess the leads would be on a different deck of engineering not portrayed by the voyager filming sets. Just trying to line up the differences.
Well, you make a great point - engineering doesn't have to be where the PTCs lead off. That means engineering could actually be higher up in the neck somewhere, maybe the actual mid-point if it's a TNG-style core to better fit that paradigm. Then the PTC could go vertically down a couple decks before going aft horizontally.

Workbee wrote: View Post
Okay, this isn't based on anything, but I like the idea of a TNG warp core for the Excelsior, seeing as how the warp nacelles share more design elements with the Enterprise D. And in my private continuity, transwarp WAS a success, and became integrated as the new standard in the TNG era.
See, that was along the lines of my thinking, but narratively I was trying to have it both ways: transwarp was a success in the sense that it allowed warp drive to be reinvented, but the actual goal of transwarp (the breaking of the transwarp barrier) was never achieved. It's my way of sidestepping "Threshold."

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Not necessarily that "private". I just went over my TNG materials and back in the late 1980's there was a fanzine that somehow had gotten access to genuine Art Department materials, including sketches of Andrew Probert etc.

Sometimes these looked like a copy of a copy of a copy but there are apparently genuine screen schematics from the bridge (e.g. Picard's command chair schematics) and one of those shows the Enterprise-D on a schematic that reads "transwarp". It's very reminiscent of the transwarp schematics from Shane Johnson's Scott's Guide to the (TMP) Enterprise from ST IV.
Fascinating... it'd be interesting to see that. I seem to remember reading that Mike Okuda told Shane Johnson that he could modify his TVH graphics to include the word transwarp because at the time there was no reason to think transwarp wasn't successful... but at some point during TNG pre-production it was decided to drop the term. I presume it was because it was deemed confusing and not directly linear from TOS. Also, Roddenberry may have disliked that it came from movies he didn't wholly approve of.

137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
I'm definitely in favor of option 1, with my own personal bias for a dual core, based on the crystal layout.
At the moment, I'm 50/50 on the dual core notion. The one reason why I'm not totally sold is that originally she had the great big crystal before the dual ones. I suppose you could make the argument that one big fancy warp core got replaced with two, less fancy ones...

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Speaking of Option 1, why is it that the shaft has to be straight? According to Option 1, the antimatter pods would be just right above the navigational deflector, correct?
Correct - right near the bow of the secondary hull, really.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Do we have some unwritten trek-no-logical law that says "structures running through angled necks of starships always have to be vertical"?

Why don't we have an angled shaft (running through the neck) that could conveniently lead past the nav deflector and down to the antimmater pods at the bottom of the engineering hull.

As a matter of fact, we do have a hatch structure there (the cover plate for the mounting rod) that could just be the loading hatch for the antimatter pods.
Well, I think the one thing working against it is precedent. Plus we do know we have some sort of horizontal segment there somewhere. Although, for the Sternbach option, I was thinking the same thing about the mounting rod hatch.

Honestly, at the moment I'm leaning towards Option One, with a horizontal core and a slightly more complicated than necessary PTC arrangement. I'll play with it a bit this evening.
__________________
"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 September 16 2013, 04:58 PM   #221
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Speaking of Option 1, why is it that the shaft has to be straight? According to Option 1, the antimatter pods would be just right above the navigational deflector, correct?
That would follow, yes. Does anyone have a good close-up view of the deflector area of the original miniature? It's possible they might have thought of this and inscribed an area in the top of the deflector housing to infer a core/antimatter emergency ejection hatch, like what is shown in the Jackill's version.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.

Last edited by 137th Gebirg; September 16 2013 at 05:09 PM.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 06:01 PM   #222
drt
Commander
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post
[
Fascinating... it'd be interesting to see that. I seem to remember reading that Mike Okuda told Shane Johnson that he could modify his TVH graphics to include the word transwarp because at the time there was no reason to think transwarp wasn't successful... but at some point during TNG pre-production it was decided to drop the term. I presume it was because it was deemed confusing and not directly linear from TOS. Also, Roddenberry may have disliked that it came from movies he didn't wholly approve of.
I never really bought the story that Johnson modified the original 1701-A graphics, that entire section of the book seemed like a last minute addition that I'd bet on which not too much time was spent. Plus, the 1701-A's "warp out" at the end of TVH was noticibly different from previous instances and seemed to be implying that the new Enterprise was faster somehow. I think the original idea was that she had trans-warp drive, but as you mentioned, the entire concept was dropped once TNG began production, probably because as you surmised Roddenberry wasn't a fan.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 06:05 PM   #223
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Workbee wrote: View Post
And in my private continuity, transwarp WAS a success, and became integrated as the new standard in the TNG era.
Not necessarily that "private". I just went over my TNG materials and back in the late 1980's there was a fanzine that somehow had gotten access to genuine Art Department materials, including sketches of Andrew Probert etc.

Sometimes these looked like a copy of a copy of a copy but there are apparently genuine screen schematics from the bridge (e.g. Picard's command chair schematics) and one of those shows the Enterprise-D on a schematic that reads "transwarp". It's very reminiscent of the transwarp schematics from Shane Johnson's Scott's Guide to the (TMP) Enterprise from ST IV.

Bob
I will state however, that I dislike how the TNG aesthetic began, through production necessity, to affect the TOS Film aesthetic in TFF, TUC and some extent, Generations. I realize that the many of the same sets were used for both productions, and it wasn't economically feasible to fully revert them to the movie versions. But when I see engineering in TUC, I tell myself that that is just the best possible stand in for the TMP engine room. So while I am OK with letting it be used for Excelsior, I am probably just as fine with a TMP style core. Due to the different production teams and agenda, my mantra would be for the movie era is generally to pretend that TNG never happened. Trek really was heading in two different directions around that time, with two distinctly differing visions.
Workbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 06:26 PM   #224
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
That would follow, yes. Does anyone have a good close-up view of the deflector area of the original miniature? It's possible they might have thought of this and inscribed an area in the top of the deflector housing to infer a core/antimatter emergency ejection hatch, like what is shown in the Jackill's version.
I think the only great pictures of that area that exist are from its life as the Lakota - and we can be fairly certain that the area was repainted when the add-ons were added, as the deflector dish itself was also replaced.

drt wrote: View Post
I never really bought the story that Johnson modified the original 1701-A graphics, that entire section of the book seemed like a last minute addition that I'd bet on which not too much time was spent. Plus, the 1701-A's "warp out" at the end of TVH was noticibly different from previous instances and seemed to be implying that the new Enterprise was faster somehow. I think the original idea was that she had trans-warp drive, but as you mentioned, the entire concept was dropped once TNG began production, probably because as you surmised Roddenberry wasn't a fan.
I think the warp out is less an intentional change as a coincidence... but I'll concede that it's entirely possible that you're right. What I meant about the graphics, and what I've taken from the story, is that Shane asked Mr. Okuda whether or not it would have transwarp and Mr. Okuda basically replied "Hrm, probably. Why not?" To which Shane then asked if he could modify the graphics, and was allowed to do so. But it's also entirely possible he didn't, sure.

Workbee wrote: View Post
I will state however, that I dislike how the TNG aesthetic began, through production necessity, to affect the TOS Film aesthetic in TFF, TUC and some extent, Generations. I realize that the many of the same sets were used for both productions, and it wasn't economically feasible to fully revert them to the movie versions. But when I see engineering in TUC, I tell myself that that is just the best possible stand in for the TMP engine room. So while I am OK with letting it be used for Excelsior, I am probably just as fine with a TMP style core. Due to the different production teams and agenda, my mantra would be for the movie era is generally to pretend that TNG never happened. Trek really was heading in two different directions around that time, with two distinctly differing visions.
Yeah - this quite well synopsizes why I'm rather torn myself. The only reason why, in the past, I've went with the TNG core relatively as seen, is that it makes for an interesting narrative and helps to explain why the ships last into TNG.

OTOH, we might conclude that the Excelsior (and Miranda, for that matter) just made use of TMP-style swirl cores, if it was later good enough for Voyager, and like you said, it was a good enough stand-in for real-world filming reasons. The Galaxy class might've invented the TNG style core in this scenario. Here, I'd imagine that the core on the Excelsior was of the swirl type, just fancier and maybe overall larger. Certainly does help account for the length of the ship, doesn't it?

Taken with the question of the antimatter pods, the Sternbach Option suddenly looks better.

Does anyone else have any feelings about this?
__________________
"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 September 16 2013, 07:14 PM   #225
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post
Fascinating... it'd be interesting to see that. I seem to remember reading that Mike Okuda told Shane Johnson that he could modify his TVH graphics to include the word transwarp because at the time there was no reason to think transwarp wasn't successful...
Unfortunately, I compared these particular TNG graphics with the Johnson ones. They are the same (judging by all the technobabble numbers), only that some guy put an Enterprise-D schematic over the Johnson Enterprise-A schematic. I just hate this kind of fraud!
But anyway, if the okudagrams on the bridge of NCC-1701-A at the end of ST IV did not say "transwarp" than there is no reason to assume it did have transwarp.

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
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 05:30 PM.

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