RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,586
Posts: 5,515,342
Members: 25,158
Currently online: 510
Newest member: Giarc1982

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 October 7 2013, 05:33 PM   #316
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post
I'm not interested in addressing the Abramsverse ships, really, at all. I also don't need them for my purposes.
Since I seem to be the only one who IS, I'll add that to my "pet projects" queue.
I think you should sir. No disrespect meant to the new films or anything, I just literally don't care for this particular project. I think it'll muddy the waters when they're already plenty muddy.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
From that analysis, however (inspired by King Daniel among others) I'm getting into the idea that there's no reason for the decks on starships to actually be continuous; and that a considerable bit of space may exist between them, which would actually explain the undercut for the saucer pretty nicely. That would mean some of the rooms/modules/compartments situated on those decks would have a bit of wiggle room for how they fit into the ship; a conference room might have a ten-foot ceiling while crew quarters are only eight, corridors are only seven, etc.

That might account for the lack of lineup between windows and deck spaces, especially if one assumes that some "plubming paths" built into the ship require parts of the deck to be raised or lowered to accommodate them.
While I do like this notion, the thing that I find it hard to account for, particularly with the notion of decks of totally different heights, is when the corridor sets of say, engineering, are seen to have the same heights as the corridors leading to the transporter room. Having stuff between decks is easier to rectify. But then, of course, depending how much stock you put in the MSDs seen on screen for other starships I'm not calling much into question, we have kind of seen that there's not much space between decks.

Shrug.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The Excelsior model actually was scaled much larger than has been generally accepted, as I think I've proven. I'm following the logical conclusion of that to see what other classes scaled to match would be like.
I'm not sure that it matters, considering how rarely the other classes appear in the same frame with the Excelsior (and then only in DS9, which has widespread scaling issues of its own).

In this entire process, though, try to remember that length isn't nearly as important as volume. The JJ-prize, for example, is VOLUMETRICALLY about as large as an Ambassador class starship while even a 622 meter Excelsior would be about 2/3rds of that.
Good point. Still, an upsized Enterprise has certain virtues, or at least I think it does, which is part of why I'm trying to flesh it out. And of course in upsizing it, you have to upsize anything that uses its parts, too.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Mytran wrote: View Post
Regarding the issues with the E-refit, maybe the decks in the secondary hull are simply a little taller? At the very least we know that the ceiling height for Main Engineering is 12'
Agreed. The deck above main engineering and 5 decks below it are 12' tall based on the engineering scenes. The cargo bay scene also corroborates a 12' deck height going further back.
I'm actually going forward with this notion, and carrying it 'backwards' to the TOS version. I'm trying to maintain as much consistency between the two for reasons I'll make plain soon.

Workbee wrote: View Post
Wow! Been away for a while. Love the discussion here. Great work as always Praetor.

I recently visited the USS Iowa down her in Long Beach and I have to concur. It isn't practical or even realistic to expect that all decks have the same height. Ships, unlike high rise buildings, are constructed around function requirements that apartment complexes, office buildings or even luxury cruise ships are not subject to. My take is, (and it looks like this has already been adopted) let the windows help inform the deck spacing, rather than try to impose a constant deck spacing throughout the ship and trying to squeeze the windows in.

WB
Thanks, WB and I'm starting to think you're right. If I'm really going to do this from a window approach with Excelsior, perhaps I'm beholden to do the same with the other ships.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Analogies to 20th Century warships have been presented here. What about luxury cruise ships? Do these have the same issues? (I consider the Enterprise to be a ship somewhere between both extremes).

Regarding the TOS Enterprise the Making of Star Trek said there are 16 engineering decks and according to my preliminary examinations these would match perfectly with the exterior windows and assuming an average height of 10'. However, the deck floor is noticably thicker on the center deck (or flight deck level).

Praetor, considering there is not that much space in the connecting dorsal of the TOS Enterprise these windows would beg for explanation assuming your deck lining were accurate.

Bob
Those neck windows have always struck me as kind of odd. It almost seems like the designers wanted to get the secondary hull as far away from the primary as possible, and given the essentially "wasted" space of the neck, decided to dedicate it to observation lounges...

B.J. wrote: View Post
I'd say yes, they do have the same issues, especially when you're in the "working areas" of the ship. Sure, most of the passenger areas have a constant deck floor, but even then, the deck heights vary quite a bit. Starfleet ships wouldn't need to cater to too many passengers, as most people aboard them are part of the crew and are there to work.
True. Perhaps I'll revisit this whole thing just a bit.
__________________
"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 October 9 2013, 03:33 AM   #317
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Alright, I've revisited the scaling a bit. I decided that what this project began with was the notion of scaling models to their windows. To that end, I decided to throw out any artificial size ratios, which I used to obtain the previous diagram.

Here's what I ended up with so far. Click for enbiggenment.


Here are some tentative figures based on above:

Galaxy 2532px / 641 m
Excelsior 2364px / 598 m
Enterprise refit 1372px / 347 m
Enterprise TOS 1312px / 332 m
Miranda 1092px / 276 m
Constellation 1320px / 334 m

These are roughly scaled to one another. I established deck heights through an admittedly convoluted means. I began with the TOS Enterprise, aligning decks based on window rows. I then applied this scaling to the refit. Part of my thinking makes use of a combination of Shaw's notion of hull pressure compartments combined with Nob Akimoto's notion that Excelsior was the first starship with a truss-integrated structural integrity field. So, the refit would actually retain nearly identical deck structure to the TOS refit process. (The refit would be accomplished by separating the various main assemblies of the hull pressure compartments, rebuilding and refurbishing them, and reassembling them, allowing the reassembled components to retain the same core elemnts but have a strikingly different appearance.)

Using the TOS and refit Enterprise, I was then able to scale the Miranda and Constellation. I left out the Oberth, temporarily, since it's a separate scaling not really related to anything on the above. And the Excelsior retains her scaling from my window analysis.

So basically official sizes are scuttled, but they're not as big as before. The Constellation to me looks pretty comparable to how the Stargazer/Hathaway looked next to the D. The two Enterprises are bigger, but still comfortably smaller. The big Excelsior is kind of an oddball, but I'm really finding myself wanting to put a Defiant next to her. Despite her dubious size, I can't help but wonder how it would look versus the Lakota/Defiant shots...

Thoughts overall?
__________________
"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 October 9 2013, 03:43 AM   #318
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

The Sovereign thread had me thinking the same thing about Defiant.

Maybe the Lakota comparison and the comparison to the E-E in First Contact might yield a similar ratio.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2013, 04:15 AM   #319
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

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).
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2013, 04:22 AM   #320
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

@Praetor - Seems reasonable. Bringing the TMP-E down a little works a little better for the docking port sizing.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2013, 04:24 AM   #321
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

^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.

While the MSD's tend to show consistent deck heights, they are often in conflict with the model due to the timing of productions -- MSDs have to be finalized before principal photography can begin (at least on that set), while the model can be tweaked and altered well into post production, after all the footage has been shot. Probably the MOST accurate MSD is the Enterprise D, and that is because it was created a few episodes in. For this reason, I interpret it is a graphical illustration of the relative position of systems, not necessarily in scale. Its meant to provide at a glance information, not a basis for accurate measurement or calculation. For this reason, I have no problem with subtle proportions. In other words, I think and MSD can tell you HOW MANY decks the ship has, but not how high the decks are in relation to each other.

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.

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.
__________________
“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 October 9 2013, 04:42 AM   #322
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

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.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2013, 04:50 AM   #323
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

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

http://www.subspace-comms.net/index.php?topic=3310.0
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.

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?
__________________
“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 October 9 2013, 06:03 PM   #324
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
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.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
@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 Enterprises too in your study? I feel like I'm remarkably close without actually trying to be.

Workbee wrote: View Post
^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.
Thank you!

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.

Workbee wrote: View Post
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.

Workbee wrote: View Post
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: View Post
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.

Workbee wrote: View Post
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

http://www.subspace-comms.net/index.php?topic=3310.0
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.

Workbee wrote: View Post
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 Excelsiors are going to be 600 meters long for my purposes and these other ships are going to follow suit per my most recent study.
__________________
"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 October 9 2013, 06:52 PM   #325
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

I think the Miranda in the DS9 battles has always been scaled to be about twice the overall beam of Defiant. The thing about the Operation Return battle that's tricky is that Sitak and Majestic overlap and swerve a bit while circling around Defiant before going boom.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2013, 09:21 PM   #326
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
I think the Miranda in the DS9 battles has always been scaled to be about twice the overall beam of Defiant. The thing about the Operation Return battle that's tricky is that Sitak and Majestic overlap and swerve a bit while circling around Defiant before going boom.
That sounds about right, and agreed regarding the swervey fudgery of that shot. Indeed, most of the DS9 shots involve a large amount of fudgery. I shall have to spend more than a minute scaling these all together to determine some precise overall dimensions.

I've been scouring fleet images from DS9 just to see if there are any that scream "no" when it comes to an oversize Excelsior. Despite the fact that the version on there was scanned from the Jein model, there's nothing very conclusive. This shot in particular almost suggests a 600 meter Excelsior to be accurate; the one above the Defiant seems to be on roughly the same horizontal plane as the Galaxy in the upper right. Then again, we have gems like this where the Galaxy just right of center has a Miranda layered behind it that would have to be huge if accurate. So I'm not putting much stock into it.

I should also note that for my Excelsior, I scaled the deck heights to the narrower height of the saucer decks on the Enterprise TOS and refit. I recalled the narrow Enterprise-B decks of "Generations" and also thought that if the Excelsior was the point where decks got even more regular, it might make more sense for them to start off small, but really it's almost a matter of taste on my part.

I am a bit surprised no one questioned the irregular intermix shaft in the Constellation. This is my attempt to accomodate the vertical core with two rear-stretching tubes in "Peak Perfromance" while also maintaining the decentralized feel of my Constitutions. My notion is that the horizontal V tubes would reach back to the two deflection crystals. The Constellation would still have nacelle reactors.
__________________
"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 October 9 2013, 09:34 PM   #327
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Workbee wrote: View Post
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.
Hi, this is my first post here.

There actually is an indication that the shaft in TMP is not just a conduit.
First, approximately from the center of the horizontal shaft onwards it is pulsing toward the end like the TNG warp core's matter and antimatter feed lines, and where it splits into the smaller shafts to the nacelles there is also a moving glow going up into the pylons. So the energy seems to go to the nacelles.

Second, the swirling lights inside the shaft don't seem to go anywhere, they're just standing still. If the actual warp core is ... let's say at the bottom of the vertical shaft, shouldn't the plasma flow upwards?

I would say that from the point on where it starts pulsing it is a conduit but before that it is the core. The only problem I see with this is that the plasma also doesn't flow to said point of the shaft, but this may be explained by the pulsing part only being visible while the ship is in drydock, and later, while accelerating to warp maybe the flow in the visible part of the shaft is very slow (like far away from a waterfall).
Egger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2013, 09:42 PM   #328
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post

I am a bit surprised no one questioned the irregular intermix shaft in the Constellation. This is my attempt to accomodate the vertical core with two rear-stretching tubes in "Peak Perfromance" while also maintaining the decentralized feel of my Constitutions. My notion is that the horizontal V tubes would reach back to the two deflection crystals. The Constellation would still have nacelle reactors.
I always thought that the warp core we have seen on the Hathaway is a newer one the Constellations were refitted with, and I like to place it where the impulse deflection crystal was on the Constitution-class part of the saucer section.
Egger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2013, 09:52 PM   #329
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Welcome to the board.

Agreed that it was a later replacement, but not so much on the placement. The V PTC's don't make much sense though because they'd go almost too wide to veer back in and up/down through the neck and into the nacelles. The only reason to have the V would be to attach to the deflection crystals, IMO. Perhaps aftward vertical branches would come off and head up... which would actually place the core further forward than I have done.

Glad I haven't set it in stone.

Regarding the swirling in the intermix shaft, I don't think we saw the Voyager's swirls flow in a particular direction... they just swirled. It's possible that in the horizontal refit shaft the reason why power appears to pulse towards the nacelles is that antimatter is being injected into the shaft and reacting back up into the nacelles.
__________________
"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 October 9 2013, 10:14 PM   #330
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

On the Constellation we do know that Hathaway had a single, rather recessed reaction chamber located somewhere in the vicinity of the impulse engines.

I rather wonder if the warp core on a Constellation isn't used more for high output exercises like combat or increasing warp velocities over peak transitional thresholds while a large bank of fusion generators (feeding the double bank of impulse engines) do the major lifting in terms of maintaining her cruising ability.

For example, we see in Peak Performance that Hathaway somehow was taken to a remote star system with only a shred of dilithium and no remaining antimatter. She was entirely on fusion power until Boy Genius spiked it with a tiny amount of antimatter (grams of it?) to give her brief warp ability. So perhaps she can't initiate high warp without antimatter, but can sustain it once driven enough to get it to that system.
Nob Akimoto 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 12:47 PM.

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