The Trek BBS statistics

Posts: 5,215,331
Members: 24,211
Currently online: 968

 The Trek BBS Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

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

 October 27 2013, 11:01 PM #391 Praetor Vice Admiral     Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank. Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model Eh, I'm not so sure we're stuck to the 10 ft deck height for TOS. Besides, my thinking is that in the TOS version at least the "underdeck" parts below the floor are open to the ceiling below... so the red "rafters" we see in the corridor and the like would expose sub-floor pipes and stuff. (In the quarters, where the ceilings appears lower, I'm thinking the underfloor is closed off.) I had the notion to break out my copy of "Mr. Scott's Guide" and take a ruler to the scale drawing of the corridors. This illuminated the fact that actual ceiling height on those sets was about eight feet. (That fits pretty well with my visual observation of how tall folks like Riker look standing in those sets.) In turn, I found that Shane Johnson decided to use 9.5 feet for his deck heights (grav plate to grav plate, or floor to floor, whichever way you want to measure it.) In turn, that made me wonder if he ever saw the drawing Mr. Probert did showing how the intermix chamber should fit in the hull, which I assume most of you are familiar with: It occurred to me that I'd never bothered to try adjusting my deck heights to match those on the refit, so I did: An interesting revelation in this process: there's a little half-deck between the torpedo deck and the deck above it that makes the decks lineup with the windows. Now, using my discovery of 9.5 foot decks, I did a little math. The above ship, based on Mr. Probert's deck lineups, would be about 374 meters. Fascinating. I then test-fit the above deck lineup into the TOS ship, and it fit quite well with only minimal tweaks. Doing some reverse math, we end up with secondary hull deck heights of about 15 feet... which doesn't seem completely unreasonable. Maybe there's just more space between floors and ceilings? Here's revised math based on the 9.5 feet decks: Excelsior: (all decks the same height) 9.5 ft/25 px = .38 ft/px 4934 px * .36 = 1874.92 ft = 571.476 meters TOS Enterprise: (Saucer Decks at 9.5 feet) 9.5 ft/28 px = .339 ft/px 3568 px * .339 = 1209.55 feet = 368.67 meters Refit Enterprise: (Saucer Decks at 9.5 feet) 9.5 ft /28 px = .339 ft/px 3619 px * .339 = 1227.875 ft = 374.2563 meters Secondary Hull Deck Height .339 ft/px * 45 px = 15.255 ft Miranda: (all decks the same height) 9.5 ft/28 px = .339 ft/px 2813 * .352 = 954.41 ft = 290.9 meters Constellation: (Saucer Decks at 9.5 feet) 9.5 ft/13 px = .731 ft/px 1568 px * .731 = 1145.85 ft = 349.26 meters Oberth: 9.5 ft/16 px = .59375 ft/px 1263 px * .59375 = 749.91 ft = 228.57 meters I left out the Oberth because I want to work on redoing its drawing, but here are our other family members at the new sizes. Another large image, click to embiggen. I actually really like how they look together at these sizes. They seem like a nice compromise between all the scaling evidence on the shows and just seem to hold up well together in my opinion. I think Excelsior, Miranda, and Constellation all seem to be within "fudge factor" of how large they appeared next to the Galaxy. 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
October 28 2013, 11:48 AM   #392
Robert Comsol
Commodore

Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

 Praetor wrote: An interesting revelation in this process: there's a little half-deck between the torpedo deck and the deck above it that makes the decks lineup with the windows.
Probably the upper level with the torpedo storage? Looks like height wise both might fit in together.

 Praetor wrote: I then test-fit the above deck lineup into the TOS ship, and it fit quite well with only minimal tweaks. Doing some reverse math, we end up with secondary hull deck heights of about 15 feet... which doesn't seem completely unreasonable. Maybe there's just more space between floors and ceilings?
Looks like I'm hard pressed to scan my TOS engineering hull deck level draft to illustrate the issue.

E-Deck heights of 9-10 feet match best for the majority of TOS E-Hull exterior windows. Besides, we need those 16 engineering decks (according to TMoST) to have a Deck 14 wide enough to accomodate corridor footage shown in "Mudd's Women" and "Dagger of the Mind".

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

 October 28 2013, 03:20 PM #393 Egger Lieutenant     Location: Germany Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model And even with the 289m version you could have 10 ft decks I think. So scaling it up to around 327m would add a little bit more space between the decks and doesn't look oversized. That's why I prefer this scale. Although I would like the ship larger, I just think it would create the problems I mentioned in earlier posts. By the way, another old thread I really like regarding scaling of the TOS ship is this one: Another take on the Original Enterprise... (this is page 28, scroll down a bit for a good cutaway view) Concerning oversize, how do the windows on the refit-Constitution compare to those of the Excelsior on your last comparison chart?
October 28 2013, 03:30 PM   #394
Praetor

Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

 Robert Comsol wrote: Probably the upper level with the torpedo storage? Looks like height wise both might fit in together.
D'oh, good call sir. Plus it gives room for the exhaust whatchamacallit at the back of the neck. It's been my general opinion that the torpedo room would not really have standard deck spacing at all, but I haven't tried lining up any drawings to confirm this yet.

Robert Comsol wrote:
 Praetor wrote: I then test-fit the above deck lineup into the TOS ship, and it fit quite well with only minimal tweaks. Doing some reverse math, we end up with secondary hull deck heights of about 15 feet... which doesn't seem completely unreasonable. Maybe there's just more space between floors and ceilings?
Looks like I'm hard pressed to scan my TOS engineering hull deck level draft to illustrate the issue.

E-Deck heights of 9-10 feet match best for the majority of TOS E-Hull exterior windows. Besides, we need those 16 engineering decks (according to TMoST) to have a Deck 14 wide enough to accomodate corridor footage shown in "Mudd's Women" and "Dagger of the Mind".

Bob
So, I actually discovered that I made an error in the above. I thought I saw deck lines in the saucer that were narrower than I had previously realized, but I don't think I did.

After my post last night, I decided to see what happened if I scaled the engineering decks to 12 feet (including the between-deck spaces.) I found that this resulted in an overall length for the refit very close to the official 305 meters. So, I decided to see how the saucer decks would line up, and surely enough, the saucer rim was exactly thick enough for two decks. I rescaled the saucer of the "Probertized" refit drawing, and things lined up pretty nicely. I then retroactively applied this to the TOS ship, and it was a pretty good fit there too. Then, I applied the same for the smaller Excelsior, and it was a better fit there too. (I was even able to use 12 foot engineering decks in the Excelsior, which I hadn't bothered to try before.)

I'll post some math and pretty pictures this evening. So Mr. Probert alignment isn't so different from what's established in the saucer as I had supposed.

 Egger wrote: And even with the 289m version you could have 10 ft decks I think. So scaling it up to around 327m would add a little bit more space between the decks and doesn't look oversized. That's why I prefer this scale. Although I would like the ship larger, I just think it would create the problems I mentioned in earlier posts. By the way, another old thread I really like regarding scaling of the TOS ship is this one: Another take on the Original Enterprise... (this is page 28, scroll down a bit for a good cutaway view) Concerning oversize, how do the windows on the refit-Constitution compare to those of the Excelsior on your last comparison chart?
I am right there with you about the details looking oversized. I will see if I can't try matching window sizes on the Excelsior model to the refit and/or Miranda this evening. It could be very interesting... or utterly disappointing.

Ok, my feelings about the Great (Scaling) Experiment are solidifying a bit now. We essentially have IMO three different scaling camps for the Enterprise family (the ships that use the same parts):

1) Decks extrapolated from TOS window rows, which result in a larger than generally accepted ship
2) Decks extrapolated from Mr. Probert's deck alignment (which match the refit window rows) which result in the generally accepted sizes

On the Excelsior front:
1) Decks extrapolated from window rows of the original model... a few more of them if we use the "Gens" damage on the Enterprise-B as gospel
2) Decks based on the official size, using Mr. Probert's refit alignments as references

One thing I hope we can all agree on is that the TMP/TNG corridor deck heights are about eight feet. That leaves what's in between to argue about.

Does anyone happen to know if any of the rooms that we'd consider standard height - quarters, sickbay, transporter room - have a ceiling height higher than 8 feet on either the TMP ship or the TNG ship? I would think the TNG sickbay would have a higher ceiling, at least. Possibly the transporter room, too. And even though I feel as if I've veered off a bit, I think I'm still in the Land of Relevance. After all, shouldn't Excelsior make sense next to her fellow ships of the fleet, and doesn't that involve understanding how those other ships are "really" put together?
__________________
"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

October 29 2013, 12:31 AM   #395
Workbee
Commander

Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

 Praetor wrote: An interesting revelation in this process: there's a little half-deck between the torpedo deck and the deck above it that makes the decks lineup with the windows.
This reminded me of a thought I had earlier. I wonder if it would help to allow for one undersized or oversized deck at the top of Excelsior's secondary hull, where that thin band of blue / grey circumscribes the hull. That might help out with matching the decks to the windows, as that feature may break up the alignment of a standard sized deck.

Also kind of weird on the all the sharp turns those intermix shafts are taking in the Ent-Refit and Excelsior. Would follow Probert's design, even if it doesn't quite match up with the movie sets.

Really wish I hadn't skipped lunch -- this is sounding a lot more blunt and demanding than I wanted. Unfortunately by brain is really struggling to string words together right now. So, yay, great job, lots of awesome work, and stuff, and stuff...
__________________
“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

October 29 2013, 01:37 AM   #396
Egger
Lieutenant

Location: Germany
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

 Praetor wrote: After my post last night, I decided to see what happened if I scaled the engineering decks to 12 feet (including the between-deck spaces.) I found that this resulted in an overall length for the refit very close to the official 305 meters. ...
For me it looks like only the Refit has different deck heights in the saucer and engineering sections. The TOS version has (approximately) the same deck heights throughout the whole ship.
I wonder, if on the TMP ship the engineering section decks are 12 ft high, would the saucer decks be around 10 ft? If yes, then the saucers of the two ships would align (as they're supposed to as far as I know) and we would be back at the official sizes for both ships. I would then scale them up again to 327m/344m because of some things which fit better at that size of the TOS ship (In the thread I posted a link to in my last post Cary L. Brown came to his preferred length of 1067 ft because of this. If I remember correctly the shuttlebay would fit behind the nacelle pylons, the bridge would line up better with the dome and the turboshaft "knob" and there were a few other things I think).
With the 327m/344m scale, the TOS ship should have decks around 11.3 ft high and the TMP ship saucer decks of the same height and engineering decks of around 13.6 ft.
Then, you could try to scale the two ships to the Excelsior based on the window sizes, although of course the space between the window rows is a factor too. Well, as you said, it could be intersting... or utterly disappointing. ^^

October 29 2013, 04:31 AM   #397
Praetor

Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

 Workbee wrote: This reminded me of a thought I had earlier. I wonder if it would help to allow for one undersized or oversized deck at the top of Excelsior's secondary hull, where that thin band of blue / grey circumscribes the hull. That might help out with matching the decks to the windows, as that feature may break up the alignment of a standard sized deck. Also kind of weird on the all the sharp turns those intermix shafts are taking in the Ent-Refit and Excelsior. Would follow Probert's design, even if it doesn't quite match up with the movie sets. Really wish I hadn't skipped lunch -- this is sounding a lot more blunt and demanding than I wanted. Unfortunately by brain is really struggling to string words together right now. So, yay, great job, lots of awesome work, and stuff, and stuff...
No worries friend, it's Monday all over.

I tend to agree about the half deck... actually the only way to make the bridge work at all for the smaller version (and, really, the larger one too) is to bury the bridge partially within a half-deck superstructure.

And I'm starting to agree regarding the twisty-turnies of the intermix chamber... in fact I had the same thought at nearly the same time you posted.

 Egger wrote: For me it looks like only the Refit has different deck heights in the saucer and engineering sections. The TOS version has (approximately) the same deck heights throughout the whole ship.
Well, here's one place where I'm just weird. Since the refit's size is so well pinned down, as this little exercise has more or less ended up proving, I've chosen to use it to inform myself about how the TOS ship was constructed. It's primarily a matter of perspective, but for me having the two be more similar is what makes my particular take unique... and for my money makes the refit not so silly.

Here's the math that I used to work out the deck heights on the smaller "Probertized" Excelsior:

Pixel height of 9.5 foot decks:
467 meters = 1532.15 ft/4939 px = .3102 ft/px
9.5/ .3102 = 30.6 px

Backing out to the overall length from the secondary hull deck height:
9.5 ft/30 px = .3105
4939 px * .3105 = 1533.35 ft = 467.37

And here's a new shot of the three heavy cruisers together. It strikes me how little they all seem at this scale, after looking at the huge ones so much.

Sorry about the watermarks. I didn't fade them as much as I normally do, and I have to get up at 5:30 so I'm not going to do them over now.

I think I'm going to wind up finishing out both scale Excelsiors, and probably the official scale versions of all the other ships. I may potentially go finish the upscaled versions of all the others, too.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q

 October 29 2013, 05:16 AM #398 Egger Lieutenant     Location: Germany Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model Hmm ... but aren't we now at the starting point again? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ships in your last scale chart are of the official sizes again, aren't they? And the initial problem was that the Excelsior seems much larger than 467m. So, the "right" scale for the Excelsior filming model would still be the one that has a deck for each window row on the secondary hull. How high these decks are is a matter of opinion I think, there's only a minimum, as you noted, the 8 ft corridors and rooms a little higher than that, so maybe 9.5 ft is reasonable for that ship. Regarding the two Enterprises, they are always at the same scale respectively (289/305; 327/344) and their saucer deck heights are the same. They only differ in the height of ther engineering hull decks, and there is also only a minimum deck height to be taken into account here (10 ft, or a little bit more). (By the way, if your problem is with the different deck heights between the TOS and TMP engineering hull, Nob Akimoto's hull compartments could be a solution. During the refit, they simply replaced the old ones with bigger compartments, resulting in fewer decks.) To scale the two Enterprises to the Excelsior then, the window sizes (of the TMP Enterprise and the Excelsior) could be a starting point. When the ships are scaled to that, we'll see if it makes any sense (if it adheres to the minimum deck heights).
October 29 2013, 07:23 PM   #399
Workbee
Commander

Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

 Praetor wrote: No worries friend, it's Monday all over. I tend to agree about the half deck... actually the only way to make the bridge work at all for the smaller version (and, really, the larger one too) is to bury the bridge partially within a half-deck superstructure.
LOL, thanks for understanding. To cap the day off perfectly, my wipers stopped working while it was pouring rain.

Not sure if this was a separate thought, but I was talking about the secondary hull, not the portion below the bridge. I figure you understood what I said, just wanted to make sure.

Actually, speaking of the bridge needing to be lowered, that seems to fit with the original concept, where the bridge was like a planetarium with stations up against the outside wall and slightly lowered.
__________________
“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

October 30 2013, 02:47 AM   #400
Praetor

Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

 Egger wrote: Hmm ... but aren't we now at the starting point again? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ships in your last scale chart are of the official sizes again, aren't they? And the initial problem was that the Excelsior seems much larger than 467m.
Well, yes to the latter. It seems like a setback but really it's not. I mistakenly thought that Mr. Probert's deck alignments were different that previously thought and actually made the refit bigger than we thought... but that simply turns out to not be the case after I corrected my math error.

And, since my original Excelsior cross-section was the official size, I've always planned to create a revised version at this size as well as the larger, apparent size. I simultaneously began revising my old TOS Enterprise cross sections, and the two projects sort of collided...

 Egger wrote: So, the "right" scale for the Excelsior filming model would still be the one that has a deck for each window row on the secondary hull. How high these decks are is a matter of opinion I think, there's only a minimum, as you noted, the 8 ft corridors and rooms a little higher than that, so maybe 9.5 ft is reasonable for that ship.
Mostly agreed. I think with the refit Enterprise we have Mr. Probert's intention that the secondary hull has 12 foot decks, and relatedly precedent for the possibility that the Excelsior's secondary hull might too. Granted, since it's intention, it is not exactly canon, but it happens to coincide with the fact that the windows align perfectly this way. In fact, the secondary hull is problematic with any other alignment, so I feel like the refit is actually pretty consistent with her official size. That, in turn, would directly affect the sizes of the ships that use her parts.

 Egger wrote: Regarding the two Enterprises, they are always at the same scale respectively (289/305; 327/344) and their saucer deck heights are the same. They only differ in the height of their engineering hull decks, and there is also only a minimum deck height to be taken into account here (10 ft, or a little bit more).
Again, generally agreed. And the main difference between the two are the window row alignments. The refit's are pretty well pinned down, but the TOS version's are a little all over the place.

 Egger wrote: (By the way, if your problem is with the different deck heights between the TOS and TMP engineering hull, Nob Akimoto's hull compartments could be a solution. During the refit, they simply replaced the old ones with bigger compartments, resulting in fewer decks.)
You know, I had purposefully tried to keep the same secondary hull deck structure between the two, because I didn't like the notion of the rebuild being that thorough and thought that the two weren't so incompatible. However, reading it from you it doesn't seem so bad.

 Egger wrote: To scale the two Enterprises to the Excelsior then, the window sizes (of the TMP Enterprise and the Excelsior) could be a starting point. When the ships are scaled to that, we'll see if it makes any sense (if it adheres to the minimum deck heights).
So, I did finally try that:

There are two scale versions. One scales the Enterprise to the stripes on the saucer edges. The other actually tries to scale the window sizes themselves, and, coincidentally, makes the secondary hull window rows line up pretty closely.

The sizes break down thusly:

Scaled to Stripes on saucer edge:
1137/305 meters = 3.7278688524590163934426229508197
1880 pixels/3.7278688524590163934426229508197 = 504.3 meters

Scaled to match window size/deck spacing on secondary hulls:
995/305 meters = 3.2622950819672131147540983606557
1880 pixels/3.2622950819672131147540983606557 = 576.28 meters

So ignoring the actual dimensions for a minute since those are kind of in flux, if you scale it to the stripes, the Enterprise is about 60% the Excelsior's length, and if you scale it to the windows, she's about 53%. Compare this to the approximate 65% of the official sizes.

 Workbee wrote: LOL, thanks for understanding. To cap the day off perfectly, my wipers stopped working while it was pouring rain.
Oh man, sorry to hear that.

 Workbee wrote: Not sure if this was a separate thought, but I was talking about the secondary hull, not the portion below the bridge. I figure you understood what I said, just wanted to make sure.
Yessir, totally on the same page.

 Workbee wrote: Actually, speaking of the bridge needing to be lowered, that seems to fit with the original concept, where the bridge was like a planetarium with stations up against the outside wall and slightly lowered.
Agreed.

So, new day new notion. I came across this ortho (which I used above) that I believe was done by the fantastic Tobias Richter in his build of the ship, which, after comparing to screencaps, appears to be pretty accurate to the real original filming model down to the window arrangement. I decided to try extrapolating decks.

Here's the fun part. Aligning all the decks on the secondary hull, we find a pretty consistent (and fairly hard to ignore) window pattern. Then, aligning the saucer decks to a visual best fit at a 9.5 ft size (assuming the secondary hull decks are 12 footers, and Workbee, note the non-deck between the saucer and interhull, and also just below the uppermost deck under the secondary hull "flattop") we end up thus:

10 px/9.5 ft = 1.053 px/ft
2080 px * 1.053 = 2189.47 feet = 667.35 meters

Backing into the pixel size of the 12 ft decks:
13 px/ 1.0526315789473684210526315789474 = 12.3 feet

13 px/12 ft = 1.083 px/ft
9.5 * 1.083 = 10.2865

So, she'd actually be even bigger than we thought. If we assume that all decks are 9.5 feet (with a resulting saucer realignment not shown here.)

13 px/9.5 ft = 1.368 px/ft
2080 px * 1.368 = 2846.32 ft = 867.56 meters

So she gets even bigger.

An important note: the top of the Excelsior secondary hull "flattop" is actually curved slightly, being higher in the center than on the outside. Previously I had backed a deck up directly against this, but in reality this would be impossible as the deck would taper on the our edges rather significantly. (Of course, one might be able to have a 9.5 ft outer deck section, and a 12 ft inner deck section...)

Out of curiosity I did an analysis on the Galaxy cross section I've been using in my comparisons to try to guess how tall the decks are. I really need to find a larger resolution file to be completely accurate, but here's that math regardless:

Galaxy:
1586 px = 642.5 meters = 2107.94 feet

1586/2107.94 = .7524 px/ft
7/.7524 = 9.3 ft

Sooo, maybe all Enterprise-D decks are 9.5 feet? All the more reason to keep the secondary hull decks in the Excelsior 12 foot to keep the relative scaling plausible.

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

 October 30 2013, 11:34 AM #401 Robert Comsol Commodore     Location: USS Berlin Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model ^^ Beautiful side-by-side-comparison! Just made me realize how much more practical I think the Excelsior stern hangar is for storing shuttlecraft (they were never that tall). And the circular structure ahead of it reminds me more than ever of the botanical section of the TMP Enterprise and most definitely of the Earth orbital complex in TMP. 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
 October 30 2013, 12:33 PM #402 Egger Lieutenant     Location: Germany Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model Good comparison, Praetor. One thing though: The alignment of the window rows on this Excelsior model's secondary hull are not quite right. Look at this: http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/..._Spacedock.jpg The number of window rows there is the same, but there is a space between the 2. from the top and the 3. that is as high as between the 3. and the 5. row. So there should be another deck between them, meaning the secondary hull has one more deck than on the model you used. There is also a higher space between the lowermost window row and the darker part of the hull.
October 30 2013, 03:50 PM   #403
Mytran
Fleet Captain

Location: North Wales
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

A few days late maybe, but if I could add my thoughts to the mix:
 Egger wrote: ...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?).
The size of the TMP Enterprise is of course fairly well tied down by the existence of the docking ports, regular window placement, the interior of the shuttlebay and so forth. It can be expanded a little but Bllsdwlf's 1164' seems close to the limit.

The TOS Enterprise on the other hand is under far less restrictions. The window levels are irregular, there are no ports or other scaled features on the hull and we see far less of the ship interacting with normal, human scaled objects (shuttlecrafts, workbees etc). The Flight Deck needs to fit in the aft section but we have no idea how long it is (the model was scaled to around 122' I think but we only ever saw it from one angle) or how if its height is the height of that part of the ship. The bridge turbolift is assumed to line up with the "nub" but this is never confirmed on the show. And a larger ship size would reduce the need to submerge the bridge into Deck 2. It might even allow the bridge ... to face forward!

I do think a larger TOS Enterprise works well. I also think we should consider the option that the TOS-E is actually LARGER than its TMP successor. The TMP-E would then be a sleeker, more modernised cruiser that has been stripped of its bulky outdated machinery; faster, lighter and stronger than before. Rather than welding extra bits on to expand the saucer's diameter and curve of the secondary hull, the change in shape is rather a result of parts of the hull having been removed. By reshaping what is already there, a lot more of the original Enterprise can remain intact as well (extensive redecorating not withstanding).

The interior sets seem to bear out this smaller size - the radius of the curved corridor is tighter and makes more efficient use of space with various compartments lining the walls throughout.

I appreciate that it flies in face of 25 years of doctrine, not to mention the designer's intent. However, does this theory seem viable?

 October 30 2013, 05:48 PM #404 Robert Comsol Commodore     Location: USS Berlin Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model I know, I'm mean, because I will always have to use this screencap from "The Cage": http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x...cagehd0032.jpg Okay, it obviously doesn't have an accurate match of live footage and VFX model (something they could or should have fixed for TOS-R) but the general idea of size is conveyed, IMHO. The problematic item here (and on the stern of the bridge with the regular series VFX model) is the shape of the turbo lift housing on the back. Even if we were to assume a bigger ship and a bigger bridge dome there'd be no way that a standby turbo lift car in that housing could just move forward to replenish the bridge with a new turbo lift car. The "bottleneck" passage would be just too narrow. 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
 October 30 2013, 07:40 PM #405 Egger Lieutenant     Location: Germany Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model Hmm ... a TOS Constitution class upscaled to 327m and a TMP version with the official 305m. Or maybe we can scale them so that their saucers are of the same diameter. I think that could be feasible. I like your idea of cutting parts of the hull away and streamlining the ship. Although the TOS ship needs to be upscaled to around 327m to solve certain problems with it (see this thread: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=89810), and for the saucers to be of the same diameter the TMP version has to be upscaled a bit too. A few notes to Mytran's post: (Slightly) irregular window levels don't speak for a bigger ship either. Especially in the engineering hull, where a few higher than normal decks wouldn't be that illogical. Only really huge irregularities would speak for a much bigger ship and I don't see them on the Constitution class. Regarding the bridge, why should it not be partly submerged into deck 2? What speaks against it? The bridge of the Excelsior also has to be submerged. It's just not really a problem. And I think more than one person has already shown that with just a little bit of upscaling, the bridge might not need to be submerged at all (like Cary L. Brown in the thread I posted a link to above). Regarding the shuttlebay, we saw the shuttlebay door from the inside and outside, and we saw details inside the shuttlebay we could scale it to. The results wouldn't be absolute because we don't know the EXACT size of those details (I think there are different figures for the TOS shuttle for example), but it gives us a reasonable range.

 Bookmarks

 Tags excelsior, uss excelsior