RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,646
Posts: 5,428,150
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 482
Newest member: Damix

TrekToday headlines

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15


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 November 17 2013, 07:55 AM   #466
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Y'all are welcome. I actually posted Bill's reply to me and then deleted it immediately when he said he would come on and reply himself, cause I wanted y'all to be surprised.

Bill's good people.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 03:59 AM   #467
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

It's stuff like this that makes the internet so fantastically awesome.

So... does anyone know if Mike Cochrane has an online presence?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 08:05 AM   #468
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post

Hm some interesting notions there. Regarding the former, what would you suppose the limiting factor to be?
Yeah. Not sure on that one. It can't be spacedock: thats beam, not length or draft. It's probably not the shipyards, unless there's some distance they have trouble beaming material to, which doesn't make much sense. What ever it is has to be there since the 2280s...Or whenever Excelsior was commissioned.

Maybe there's a civilian facility so useful to Star Fleet they're willing to cater to it's size? ...I don't really like this solution.

The most reasonable thought I've had was the warp fields themselves where hard to make larger than 650 meters or so. Not sure if this really makes much sense either. But, then, what in warp physics really does?
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 03:04 PM   #469
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

That's very awesome Maurice for talking to Bill George and WOW welcome to the boards Bill George!

Maurice wrote: View Post
bgeorge wrote: View Post
I really don’t think there is a definitive answer to this question...
Hey Bill, thanks for chiming in so quickly after I messaged you.

One thing you said to me on IM, which you didn't mention above, was this:

bgeorge wrote:
(via IM)...The only common factor that you could use between the models would be the size of the round port holes assuming they are a standard size. On the Enterprise they were about 3/8th of an inch and on the Excelsior they were like a sixteenth or less.
Just a rough estimate- this would put the scaling of the physical Excelsior model (1/16" porthole) to be 1/6th of the physical Enterprise model (6/16" porthole). How long were the two physical models?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 11:33 PM   #470
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It's stuff like this that makes the internet so fantastically awesome.

So... does anyone know if Mike Cochrane has an online presence?
Agreed, and I would love to know the answer to that question as well.

zDarby wrote: View Post
Praetor wrote: View Post

Hm some interesting notions there. Regarding the former, what would you suppose the limiting factor to be?
Yeah. Not sure on that one. It can't be spacedock: thats beam, not length or draft. It's probably not the shipyards, unless there's some distance they have trouble beaming material to, which doesn't make much sense. What ever it is has to be there since the 2280s...Or whenever Excelsior was commissioned.

Maybe there's a civilian facility so useful to Star Fleet they're willing to cater to it's size? ...I don't really like this solution.

The most reasonable thought I've had was the warp fields themselves where hard to make larger than 650 meters or so. Not sure if this really makes much sense either. But, then, what in warp physics really does?
Heh, you're right, there's no single elegant solution, is there? Maybe the warp field is proportional to the size of the dilithium crystal. Or somethin.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
That's very awesome Maurice for talking to Bill George and WOW welcome to the boards Bill George!

Maurice wrote: View Post
bgeorge wrote:
(via IM)...The only common factor that you could use between the models would be the size of the round port holes assuming they are a standard size. On the Enterprise they were about 3/8th of an inch and on the Excelsior they were like a sixteenth or less.
Just a rough estimate- this would put the scaling of the physical Excelsior model (1/16" porthole) to be 1/6th of the physical Enterprise model (6/16" porthole). How long were the two physical models?
The refit is 8 feet and the Excelsior is 7.5 feet.

See if you agree with my math...

refit - 8 foot
Excelsior - 7.5 foot

refit - 6/16 porthole = .375
Excelsior - 1/16 porthole = .0625

To bring them on par by accounting for the relative model sizes:

8/7.5 = 1.067
1.067*.0625 = .067

Finding the size difference once model size isn't an issue:

.375/.067 = 5.6

So the Excelsior should be 5.6 times the Enterprise's length if we go by the portholes.

Evaluating the official 305 meter refit length:

305 meters * 5.6 = 1708 meter Excelsior length

Crap in a hat.

There's also something I've noticed about the windows on the Excelsior vs. the Enterprise-B version of the secondary hull. I don't think they're the same, to the extent that I think the deck alignment would be different. I'll provide some graphics for evaluation later. I really don't want to redo these freaking deck alignments again.
__________________
"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 November 19 2013, 12:11 AM   #471
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Let's bear in mind that Bill may not remember exactly how big the portholes are, so if any accurate plans show the portholes for both ships I'd begin there.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 19 2013, 03:20 AM   #472
Lord Garth, FOI
Commander
 
Lord Garth, FOI's Avatar
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Let's ban all portholes
Lord Garth, FOI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 19 2013, 01:52 PM   #473
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Unless these can come in different sizes (even on the same ship).

Here's an interesting link: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2794873

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 November 19 2013, 06:59 PM   #474
Boris Skrbic
Commander
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

I suppose the next step is to contact Nilo Rodis (regarding the chart) and Mike Cochrane (regarding the blueprints).
Boris Skrbic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21 2013, 04:04 AM   #475
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Boris wrote: View Post
I suppose the next step is to contact Nilo Rodis (regarding the chart) and Mike Cochrane (regarding the blueprints).
Yep. I don't suppose anyone knows them?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Unless these can come in different sizes (even on the same ship).

Here's an interesting link: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2794873

Bob
Great point. I see no reason that the Enterprise and Excelsior portholes need be the same size.

Meanwhile, I think I have a new problem of sorts. As I alluded to earlier, I think the decks on the secondary hull of the Excelsior and Enterprise-B are different. Like, completely different.

Compare:



Among other things, the short row at the aft curve of the secondary hull behind the lower stripe of the pennant on Excelsior seems to be completely be missing from the Enterprise-B. The row below the pennant on the B appears to correspond to the row below the missing row from Excelsior. Beyond this, all windows appear to be differently sized and located. The only windows that appear to me to actually be the same are the ones on the flattop edge around the top.

Here is the deck alignment for the secondary hull I derived from the detailed Enterprise-B drawings upthread:


As you can see comparing to the Enterprise-B photo above, this drawing is pretty spot-on accurate. I don't question the accuracy of this, at least according to the way the windows are on the B/Lakota.

Of course, lest we forget my study of the damage to the protrustions on the secondary hull from an earlier post.



This of course leaves us with a discrepancy between apparent window size on the rest of the secondary hull. We could decide that the protrusions have shorter decks that somehow connect to the decks in the main body. If those shorter decks are actually 2.65 meters tall as it appears based on Chekov's height, the ship is about 589 meters long. If those decks are actually 9.5 foot decks to match the saucer, then the ship is 641 meters long. If they're only 9 feet, we get 609 meters long. Tantalizing close, eh?

The closest we ever get to a dead-on side view of the
Excelsior is in TSFS when the Enterprise is entering spacedock:



Granted, having to scale it up this much increases the margin of error, but one can find 17 decks here, compared to the 15.5 decks derived from the Enterprise-B drawing above.

Compare this, then, to this opening shot from TUC, which is not quite a horizontally straight quarter front shot:



I've aligned the decks horizontally even, trying to match the aft edge of the secondary hull. Here we find 16 decks.

So we seem to know the story of the two ships, and those stories seem to be different. Since the external appearance of the two secondary hulls is so different, it may be no problem to accept that the interior of a standard Excelsior is quite different from a Enterprise-B/Lakota variant. However, this now gives me the problem of figuring out exactly how many decks there really are in the Excelsior secondary hull. Not quite square one, but kinda sorta. The one piece of good news is that we can keep the 9.5 foot alignments from the saucer, and potentially end up using the same deck heights in the secondary hull. I will play around with that next.

Sigh. If this ain't a labor of love I don't know what is.

Since we keep tiptoeing around the same vicinity, it may be advantageous for my efforts to simply decide that the size the model represents is "really" around 2000 feet instead of around 1500 feet, and not chain myself so precisely with established deck heights.

Some interesting math I discovered. Supposedly the Excelsior was intended to be 1.5 the Enterprise's 1000 foot length, which, after the model was completed, ended up being 1532.15 feet "officially."

1532.15 ft/1500 ft = 1.02143 variance
2000 ft * 1.02143 = 2042.86 feet = 622.67 meters

Hilarious.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Praetor; November 21 2013 at 04:24 AM.
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21 2013, 04:52 AM   #476
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

But but...a 1700m Excelsior would be COOL.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21 2013, 04:55 AM   #477
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Secondary question, would the portholes being much smaller on the Excelsior actually make much sense? How large are they on the Movie-Ent?
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21 2013, 04:45 PM   #478
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

This TMP screencap should help to determine the size, although I would only go by the diameter of the circular docking port doors.

I don't trust transparent aluminium, that stuff has unpredictable properties.
In the above docking port scene it appears to have a magnifying effect, but just a few scenes earlier it seemed to have a minimizing effect (gee, that's a giant of a travel pod ).

Close to the windows the interiors appear darker but from the distance they shine like a floodlight.

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 November 21 2013, 06:40 PM   #479
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
In the above docking port scene it appears to have a magnifying effect, but just a few scenes earlier it seemed to have a minimizing effect (gee, that's a giant of a travel pod ).
Okay, until I took a good look at this screencap, I had never realized that the top of the travel pod sloped down like that! I suppose it didn't help that the graphic used in the encyclopedia and other places shows it flat.
__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 21 2013, 11:16 PM   #480
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

^^ Oh my goodness, you are right!

Looks like my new favorite CGI artist is one of the few who got it straight: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fesariu...n/photostream/ (I mean "sloped")

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 02:27 PM.

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