RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,887
Posts: 5,329,902
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 501
Newest member: Mgroup Video

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 20 2013, 10:07 PM   #376
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Egger wrote: View Post
Here's my theory of warp drive and the reactor configuration in TOS:

1. The Constitution class has 3 reactors, one in each nacelle and one of the same type in the engineering hull.
Yes, that's what TOS obviously suggests for the Enterprise Starship Class, according to the dialogues plus the engineering hull reactor according to "That Which Survives".

Egger wrote: View Post
2. Dilithium (used in the "Dilithium Crystal Converter Assembly) is a highly efficient way of converting massive amounts of energy in the form of radiation into electrical energy.
That's one explanation, but it could also be an amplifier of energy (that's what TAS and TNG suggested).

Egger wrote: View Post
3. The "Dilithium Crystal Converter Assembly" is the so-called "main energizer", with auxillary (non-dilithium) energizers for example being used for the impulse reactors.
About that I'm not that certain. It's correct that the room added in TWOK apparently holds the DCCA which Spock repairs but the "main energizer" could be the entire surroundings of the room (the TWOK version of the TOS "cathdral") where the DCCA (now) just happens to be in the same room.

Palmer: (to Spock) Sir, Deck seven reports power failure in main energizers. Implementing emergency procedures. (another hit) Severe casualties reported on decks three and four. Damage control party sealing off inner hull rupture.

This dialogue from "The Doomsday Machine" clearly indicates, IMHO, there is more than one "main energizer" aboard the TOS Enterprise and these are located on Deck 7.

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 October 20 2013, 10:47 PM   #377
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Egger wrote: View Post
2. Dilithium (used in the "Dilithium Crystal Converter Assembly) is a highly efficient way of converting massive amounts of energy in the form of radiation into electrical energy.
That's one explanation, but it could also be an amplifier of energy (that's what TAS and TNG suggested).
Yeah. I was long trying to sort out how all that works and how to make sense of the design and technology of the TOS Enterprise, and a kind of big picture started to form (with much input from several threads on this board) around the assumption that dilithium is an energy converter.
I wonder how the amplifier-explaination could be worked out.

In TNG, the DCCA would simply be incorporated into the reaction chamber where it would be directly at the "source". I don't really know how the electricity it generates would flow (there had to be some kind of barrier to have an electric potential I think) but the plasma conduits would transport the energy to the main EPS taps where it is diverted to the EPS system.


Egger wrote: View Post
3. The "Dilithium Crystal Converter Assembly" is the so-called "main energizer", with auxillary (non-dilithium) energizers for example being used for the impulse reactors.
About that I'm not that certain. It's correct that the room added in TWOK apparently holds the DCCA which Spock repairs but the "main energizer" could be the entire surroundings of the room (the TWOK version of the TOS "cathdral") where the DCCA (now) just happens to be in the same room.
Oh, my fault, of course the DCCA is only part of it. What I really meant was that the DCCA is the distinguishing part between all the energizer systems, it is what makes the one in the engineering hull the main energizer.


This dialogue from "The Doomsday Machine" clearly indicates, IMHO, there is more than one "main energizer" aboard the TOS Enterprise and these are located on Deck 7.
That would then be the energizers of the impulse reactors I would think, but if it is also a "main" one ... hmm.
Egger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22 2013, 03:22 AM   #378
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Egger wrote: View Post
My thinking is that the reactors by the time of TOS are really reliable, so having them in the nacelles is no problem because they don't need much maintenance. What needs the maintenance is the energizer (more specifically the "dilithium crystal converter assembly"), so, in addition to it being unneccesary for the nacelles themselves, that one needs to be in the hull. The additional reactor in the Constitution class is there to provide more energy for the ships most demanding systems (weapons, shields and so on), to give the warp drive an additional boost and to supply the deflector dish - or, as I see it, the "high power long range sensor (the dish) and scanner (the thing behind the dish) assembly".
Overall, I agree and like the way you suggest it works.

Egger wrote: View Post
I think the coils and energizers don't evaporate the plasma but simply suck all the energy out and then the plasma changes its aggregate phase back to deuterium gas. It is then pumped to the deuterium tanks or the reactors again.
Hm, that's an interesting notion. I would wonder, though, whether this waste plasma would actually be reusable, though? Still it's an interesting thought, and rather pleasing to think of the ship as a mostly closed system (minus the antimatter.) Are there any major instances of ships running out of deuterium? I can't recall any off-hand.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It WAS an absurdly large ship. That's the whole point: it may have broken (and held) all Federation speed records for over a century, but its transwarp drive was so huge that it could never be a practical exploration vessel. The few practical transwarp vessels weren't quite as large, but the use of exotic materials in their engines and drive cores made them absurdly expensive, maintenance intensive, hard to repair and impossible to replace. They were on the raggedy edge of being useful, and Starfleet barely tolerated their continued existence.

Of course, even that would not be without precedent, considering Terra Prime managed to install a warp drive on the Orpheus Mining Colony without anyone knowing about it.
I agree that the large size kind of helps make the case of the impracticality... how many are you thinking would have existed overall? Maybe the XCV 330 was the only one...

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Egger wrote: View Post
2. Dilithium (used in the "Dilithium Crystal Converter Assembly) is a highly efficient way of converting massive amounts of energy in the form of radiation into electrical energy.
That's one explanation, but it could also be an amplifier of energy (that's what TAS and TNG suggested).
I've always liked that theory of yours... maybe it both controls and amplifies the reactions at the same time?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Egger wrote: View Post
3. The "Dilithium Crystal Converter Assembly" is the so-called "main energizer", with auxillary (non-dilithium) energizers for example being used for the impulse reactors.
About that I'm not that certain. It's correct that the room added in TWOK apparently holds the DCCA which Spock repairs but the "main energizer" could be the entire surroundings of the room (the TWOK version of the TOS "cathdral") where the DCCA (now) just happens to be in the same room.

Palmer: (to Spock) Sir, Deck seven reports power failure in main energizers. Implementing emergency procedures. (another hit) Severe casualties reported on decks three and four. Damage control party sealing off inner hull rupture.

This dialogue from "The Doomsday Machine" clearly indicates, IMHO, there is more than one "main energizer" aboard the TOS Enterprise and these are located on Deck 7.

Bob
I tend to agree with these observations, Bob.

Back to our previously scheduled program, here's the work that's proceeded on the larger Excelsior. I realized I had somehow gained extra decks from my original ILM model analysis (I think from the Enterprise-B analysis) and I've ultimately decided to go back to the original window row analysis based on TSFS and TUC screencaps. She has 30 habitable decks, but is close to 32 decks tall.



Doing some math, I've come up with several possible sizes for this iteration of the ship, using the pixels of the rasterized image.

At the size I rendered it, each deck is 25 pixels tall and the ship is overall 4,934 pixels long. Three distinct possibilities:

(1) 10 ft decks:

10 ft/25 px: .4 ft/px
4934 px * .4 = 1973.6 ft = 601.55328/602 meters

(2) 12 ft decks:

12 ft/25 px = .48ft/px
4934 px * .48 = 2368.32 = 752.343936 meters

(3) 8 ft decks:

8 ft/25 px = .32 ft/px
4934 px * .32 = 1578.88 ft = 481.24624 meters

I'm leaning towards option one. I like the notion of uniform deck heights because I'm asserting that this is the beginning of TNG-era non-pressure compartment building techniques and all TNG-era deck heights appear mostly uniform. Plus, somehow it makes sense that all decks would be the same height as the saucer heights of the TOS/TMP era.

I'm also slowly settling into being comfortable with the TMP intermix chamber setup being used until around the time the Melbourne was launched. You'll also note that I've decided the larger pod section of the large shuttlebay should be used for housing the larger TUC executive/spacedock shuttle, of which the ship may carry two, and the above section used for workbees and standard shuttles. I'm still refining and accurizing this area 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 22 2013, 04:03 AM   #379
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post
Egger wrote: View Post
I think the coils and energizers don't evaporate the plasma but simply suck all the energy out and then the plasma changes its aggregate phase back to deuterium gas. It is then pumped to the deuterium tanks or the reactors again.
Hm, that's an interesting notion. I would wonder, though, whether this waste plasma would actually be reusable, though? Still it's an interesting thought, and rather pleasing to think of the ship as a mostly closed system (minus the antimatter.) Are there any major instances of ships running out of deuterium? I can't recall any off-hand.
The ship would eventually run out of deuterium (and this happened in Voyager at least one time), because not all of it can be reused. My thinking is that the mixing ratio of matter and antimatter in the reactor is not 1:1. There is more deuterium pumped in, and that will absorb the energy from the reaction and become the highly energetic plasma. This plasma, after the energy has been "sucked" out by warp coils and energizers can then be reused as deuterium fuel.
However, a part of the deuterium (maybe most of it) used in the reactors will have been annihilated with antimatter and therefore is gone.


At the size I rendered it, each deck is 25 pixels tall and the ship is overall 4,934 pixels long. Three distinct possibilities:

(1) 10 ft decks:

10 ft/25 px: .4 ft/px
4934 px * .4 = 1973.6 ft = 601.55328/602 meters

(2) 12 ft decks:

12 ft/25 px = .48ft/px
4934 px * .48 = 2368.32 = 752.343936 meters

(3) 8 ft decks:

8 ft/25 px = .32 ft/px
4934 px * .32 = 1578.88 ft = 481.24624 meters

I'm leaning towards option one.
I agree on the 601 metres, but it's interesting that with option 3 we would roughly be at the "canon" length.
Egger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22 2013, 04:08 AM   #380
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

TNG TM says that under most operating circumstances the M:AM ratio in a GCS is 25:1 and that it gets up to 1:1 as it approaches higher warp factors.

What if the thing that makes post-Excelsior designs special is that they're able to go with a pure 1:1 M/AM ratio rather than having to have reactant deuterium to be used in a way that can be energized. That is to say, things like the swirlie chambers probably are some sort of anti-matter spiked fusion plant rather than a pure m:am 1:1 reaction. Hence you'd need the stuff to be reacting at the whole thing of the chamber, rather than in a single reaction chamber.

Also, a XCV-330 with a 5km diameter engine would at least be the overall size of Earth Spacedock. Basically we're talking about a Babylon station sized thing.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22 2013, 04:57 AM   #381
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
TNG TM says that under most operating circumstances the M:AM ratio in a GCS is 25:1 and that it gets up to 1:1 as it approaches higher warp factors.
Sounds logical. I haven't read any trek literature, I only know the films and series, so I only remembered what Wesley said in one TNG episode about the ratio being always 1:1. Of course I ignore what he said.


What if the thing that makes post-Excelsior designs special is that they're able to go with a pure 1:1 M/AM ratio rather than having to have reactant deuterium to be used in a way that can be energized. That is to say, things like the swirlie chambers probably are some sort of anti-matter spiked fusion plant rather than a pure m:am 1:1 reaction. Hence you'd need the stuff to be reacting at the whole thing of the chamber, rather than in a single reaction chamber.
The warp plasma that's "de-energized" in the warp coils and energizers would still need to be replaced. And since it is already needed in the warp core (to absorb the energy from the reaction) it would always be needed to replace it right there. Otherwise the annihilation energy could go nowhere and would just make the warp core explode (or maybe melt).


Also, a XCV-330 with a 5km diameter engine would at least be the overall size of Earth Spacedock. Basically we're talking about a Babylon station sized thing.
This seems to be a bit huge if you ask me, but if it can be rationalized ...
Egger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22 2013, 05:05 AM   #382
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Oh and by the way, regarding your idea of the swirl chambers, this would also fit the reactors before TMP well I think. Look at the reactor of the NX class, it has the swirling effect too, and maybe TOS warp cores could be similar. The TMP version would then be a kind of evolution of this, a reactor array.

EDIT: The intermix chamber being an "anti-matter spiked fusion plant" could also be supported by the connection between intermix chamber and the impulse engines.
Egger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22 2013, 01:07 PM   #383
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Egger wrote: View Post
Also, a XCV-330 with a 5km diameter engine would at least be the overall size of Earth Spacedock. Basically we're talking about a Babylon station sized thing.
This seems to be a bit huge if you ask me, but if it can be rationalized ...
May I recommend this BBS thread which essentially revolves around the XCV-330 Enterprise?

While I personally prefer a larger size for this ship (explaining its absence on the conference lounge sculpture wall of the E-D), the windows of the "enviropod" suggest a smaler scale.

For what Roddenberry wanted his "Starship" TV series to be, I'd dare to say that the ship would have been much bigger. Then, it ended up on the TMP Enterprise's rec deck display telling us little or nothing about it's actual in-universe size.

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 October 23 2013, 02:33 AM   #384
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Egger wrote: View Post
The ship would eventually run out of deuterium (and this happened in Voyager at least one time), because not all of it can be reused.
Maybe some of it actually does burn off, rather than being unusable. Or maybe it is unusable, and it's just blown out.

Egger wrote: View Post
I agree on the 602 metres, but it's interesting that with option 3 we would roughly be at the "canon" length.
Thank you for noticing that, as I forgot to point it out; it is rather interesting isn't it? I think 8 feet is a bit too short for her deck heights, though.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
TNG TM says that under most operating circumstances the M:AM ratio in a GCS is 25:1 and that it gets up to 1:1 as it approaches higher warp factors.

What if the thing that makes post-Excelsior designs special is that they're able to go with a pure 1:1 M/AM ratio rather than having to have reactant deuterium to be used in a way that can be energized. That is to say, things like the swirlie chambers probably are some sort of anti-matter spiked fusion plant rather than a pure m:am 1:1 reaction. Hence you'd need the stuff to be reacting at the whole thing of the chamber, rather than in a single reaction chamber.
That's freakin' brilliant... and the supercharger on Excelsior would fit in nicely as a sort of prototypical compromise on the way to inventing the "supercollider" style core.

Egger wrote: View Post
Oh and by the way, regarding your idea of the swirl chambers, this would also fit the reactors before TMP well I think. Look at the reactor of the NX class, it has the swirling effect too, and maybe TOS warp cores could be similar. The TMP version would then be a kind of evolution of this, a reactor array.

EDIT: The intermix chamber being an "anti-matter spiked fusion plant" could also be supported by the connection between intermix chamber and the impulse engines.
Great points!

I have worked out a bit more math regarding the other starship classes, using the pixel/feet method.

(1) Constitution TOS

(For only this one, I used a differently scaled exported file which is why the pixel dimensions are a bit different, so there's a tiny margin of error compared to the others.)

Option A, Saucer Decks: @ 10 ft, Engineering Decks @ 12 ft

10 ft/13 px = .77

1717 * .77 = 1322.09 feet = 402.97 meters

Option B, Saucer Decks @ 8 ft, Engineering Decks @ 10 ft

8ft/13 px = .615ft/px

1717 *.615 = 1055.955 ft = 321.86 meters

Option C, All Decks Uniform Height @ 10 ft
(For this option, saucer deck heights would be increased to match the scale on the engineering hull.)

All Decks @ 10ft

10 ft/16 px = .625

1717 px * .625 = 1073.125 ft = 327.1 meters

(2) Constitution refit


Option A, Saucer Decks: @ 10 ft, Engineering Decks @ 12 ft

10 ft /27 px = .37 ft/px

3619 px * .37 = 1339.03 ft = 408 meters

Option B, Saucer Decks @ 8 ft, Engineering Decks @ 10 ft

8ft/27 px = .296 ft/px

3619 px *.296 = 1072.3 ft = 326.84 meters

Option C, All Decks Uniform Height @ 10 ft
(For this option, saucer deck heights would be increased to match the scale on the engineering hull.)

All Decks @ 10ft

10 ft/32 px = .3125

3619 px * .3125= 1130.94 ft = 344.7 meters

(3) Miranda

Option A, All Decks @ 10 ft

10 ft/28 px = .357 ft/px

2813 * .357 = 1004.241 ft = 306.1 meters

Option B, All Decks @ 8 ft

8 ft/28 px = .2857 ft/px

2813 * .2857 = 803.7 ft = 244.97 meters

(4) Constellation


Option A, All Decks @ 10 ft


10 ft/13 px = .77 ft/px

1568 px * .77 = 1207.36 ft = 368 meters

Option B, All Decks @ 8 ft

8 ft/13 px = .615 ft/px

1568 px * .615 = 964.92 ft = 294.1 meters

(5) Oberth

Option A, All Decks @ 8 ft


8 ft/16 px = .5 ft/px

1263 px * .5 = 631.5 ft = 192.48 meters

Option B, All Decks @ 10 ft

10 ft/16 px = .625 ft/px

1263 px * .625 = 789.375 ft = 240.6 metersGenerally, I prefer option A for each, including the 8 ft decks on the Oberth. Here's the pretty picture to go with it. (Careful, it's huge.)



In this scale analysis, I've included the scaled dorsal views of the Galaxy and Excelsior to solidify my opinon that even at 602 meters long, Excelsior is still comfortably smaller than the Galaxy, and leaves Galaxy her top dog status quite nicely.
__________________
"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 23 2013, 04:25 AM   #385
Lord Garth, FOI
Lieutenant Commander
 
Lord Garth, FOI's Avatar
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Isn't it established that at least from the sets we saw in TOS that all decks and hallways were shown at about 10 ft in the saucer section and then taller in engineering?
Very cool
Personally I'd like to go with option A for Connie and refit I like them at a bigger scale
Lord Garth, FOI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23 2013, 10:08 AM   #386
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

@ Lord Garth

All the TOS corridor and room wall panels had a maximal height or beam of 10 feet. And while we do have a couple of shots in TOS that exposed the full height, the overscan of any 4:3 TV tube set would have cut off some of the overhead areas.

An interesting piece is the briefing room set. The top of the ceiling support beams ended at a height of 2.8 meters. I interpreted this as a hint that 2.8 meters was intended to be the average deck height in the saucer hull.

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 October 23 2013, 09:42 PM   #387
Lord Garth, FOI
Lieutenant Commander
 
Lord Garth, FOI's Avatar
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Thanks brother
Lord Garth, FOI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24 2013, 04:17 PM   #388
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Regarding the ships scales:

Although I like the bigger scale for the Constitution class (mainly because it enhances the size difference between her and the NX class so it looks more like they made progress), at around 400 metres I think everything would be oversized. The windows would (I think, because I only did rough measurements) be around 1 metre high and the wider ones around 2 metres wide.
Furthermore, wouldn't the shuttlebay be too big for the shuttlebay sets (TOS and the films) we've seen? And I think the bridge (on the TOS ship) had to be shifted back to align the knob on the back of the dome (which I presume is the turboshaft) to the bridge set.
And of course there are the docking ports which would be way too big (aren't they oversized already?).

So, I really would like them to be bigger, but I think they still work better at the lower scale (327 and 344 metres, option C). Also, the small size difference between Constitution and NX could be explained away. It could be that Starfleet wanted mainly faster ships but didn't have the technology to make the ships bigger in addition to that (limitations of the warp drive maybe). This could explain the huge nacelles on the Constitution class. It's built to be the fastest, not the biggest.

And for the Oberth, I would also rather take the 10 ft decks. There has to be some space (for structural members, conduits ...) between the decks.

Last edited by Egger; October 24 2013 at 04:31 PM.
Egger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27 2013, 01:30 AM   #389
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
@ Lord Garth

All the TOS corridor and room wall panels had a maximal height or beam of 10 feet. And while we do have a couple of shots in TOS that exposed the full height, the overscan of any 4:3 TV tube set would have cut off some of the overhead areas.

An interesting piece is the briefing room set. The top of the ceiling support beams ended at a height of 2.8 meters. I interpreted this as a hint that 2.8 meters was intended to be the average deck height in the saucer hull.

Bob
Great points, Bob. Rewatching TOS, I've been beginning to wonder whether the ceiling structure we see in the briefing room and corridors isn't the same thing that would be covered up by ceiling panels in later eras. Perhaps an overall deck height of nine feet, including the in-between crap, is plausible.

Egger wrote: View Post
Regarding the ships scales:

Although I like the bigger scale for the Constitution class (mainly because it enhances the size difference between her and the NX class so it looks more like they made progress), at around 400 metres I think everything would be oversized. The windows would (I think, because I only did rough measurements) be around 1 metre high and the wider ones around 2 metres wide.
Furthermore, wouldn't the shuttlebay be too big for the shuttlebay sets (TOS and the films) we've seen? And I think the bridge (on the TOS ship) had to be shifted back to align the knob on the back of the dome (which I presume is the turboshaft) to the bridge set.
And of course there are the docking ports which would be way too big (aren't they oversized already?).

So, I really would like them to be bigger, but I think they still work better at the lower scale (327 and 344 metres, option C). Also, the small size difference between Constitution and NX could be explained away. It could be that Starfleet wanted mainly faster ships but didn't have the technology to make the ships bigger in addition to that (limitations of the warp drive maybe). This could explain the huge nacelles on the Constitution class. It's built to be the fastest, not the biggest.

And for the Oberth, I would also rather take the 10 ft decks. There has to be some space (for structural members, conduits ...) between the decks.
Generally agreed.

Does anyone know how tall the floor-to-ceiling heights of the TMP/TNG sets were? Scaling them visually against Riker, they look to be around 8 feet tall, which could allow another foot or two between ceilings. (I've scoured the internet a bit but not found very good references with sized scaling.)

Additionally, what is the actual source of the notion that the Enterprise refit is 10 feet in the saucer and 12 feet in the engineering hull? Moreover, why do we think that they're different, when engineering was built adjacent the curved corridor? Is it something to do with the cargo room scene?

Pursuing the nine foot deck height angle a bit...

Excelsior:

9 ft/25 px = .36 ft/px
4934 px * .36 = 1776.24 ft = 541.398 meters

TOS Enterprise: (Saucer Decks at 9 feet, Engineering Decks at 11 feet)
9 ft/13 px = .69
1717 * .69 = 1184.73 feet = 361.106 meters

Refit Enterprise: (Saucer Decks at 9 feet, Engineering Decks at 11 feet)
9 ft /27 px = .33 ft/px
3619 px * .33 = 1206.33 ft = 367.69 meters

Miranda:
9 ft/27 px = .33 ft/px
2813 * .33 = 937.67 ft = 285.8 meters

Constellation:
9 ft/13 px = .69 ft/px
1568 px * .69 = 1085.54 ft = 330.87 meters

Oberth:
9 ft/16 px = .5625 ft/px
1263 px * .5625 = 710.44 ft = 216.54 meters

I actually kind of like these sizes... in my head it feels like a pretty good scale. 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 October 27 2013, 02:10 PM   #390
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Since we can see in TOS that the visible deck height is around 10 ft, the full deck height must be a bit more than that. If the 289 metres TOS Enterprise could have 10 ft (without "a bit more") decks, the upscaled version (327 metres) can have "10 ft plus a bit more" (11.31 ft) deck heights.
So if a 289 metres Constitution class could have 10 ft decks then, my choice would be the 327 metres version because it supports the visible deck height, has enough space between the decks and nothing looks too oversized (windows, bridge dome, shuttle bay ...). That's my reasoning.
Egger 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 06:18 AM.

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