RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,759
Posts: 5,433,657
Members: 24,838
Currently online: 611
Newest member: MaineLen

TrekToday headlines

The Art of John Alvin Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek 3 To Being Shooting Next Year
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 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 November 13 2013, 04:04 PM   #451
Egger
Lieutenant
 
Egger's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

@Praetor: Count me in for the large Excelsior too.

Regarding the size differences between the two Constitution classes, I just noticed while viewing Myrtan's comparison on page 28 again how well the engineering hull's window rows match when the lower edge of the saucers are matched:

Mytran wrote: View Post
Egger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 14 2013, 02:31 PM   #452
anh165
Commander
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

467 meters still for me.

It doesnt look twice the size in ST3 when the Enterprise escapes space dock.
__________________
No animals were harmed during posting ...
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 14 2013, 02:43 PM   #453
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Depends on the size of the refit
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 14 2013, 03:26 PM   #454
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Is there a chance I can still see a size comparison where the size of the hull markings are matched (i.e. saucer letters, engineering hull pennant)?

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 15 2013, 01:38 AM   #455
kennysmith
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: sacramento ca
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

please i am trying to give you this, the only starship i need a lot of info is from the TOS starship only and not no, A, B, C, D, E, or none of the movies from ST1, ST2, ST3, or even ST4 OR 5.
kennysmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 15 2013, 02:21 AM   #456
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Hi gang.

Egger wrote: View Post
@Praetor: Count me in for the large Excelsior too.
Ballot counted. Thankya.

Egger wrote: View Post
Regarding the size differences between the two Constitution classes, I just noticed while viewing Myrtan's comparison on page 28 again how well the engineering hull's window rows match when the lower edge of the saucers are matched:

Mytran wrote: View Post
Indeed. The longer I look at that the more I dig it. (Plus, the refit being a "chopped and channeled" version of the TOS ship is neat.)

Let's explore this a bit:


I've found there to be 11 saucer decks in the TOS version and 10 saucer decks in the refit, and 8 secondary hull decks for both. (I didn't count the neck, since we may wish to conclude the neck was completely swapped out for this concept of how the refit went.) I estimate 6 TOS neck decks, which fits nicely with TMoST, and 4.5 refit neck decks. I'm thinking the TOS ship's neck would have 9.5 foot decks, and the refit ship's neck would have 12 foot decks.

I'm concluding the refit deck layout to be very similar to Mr. Probert's drawing, and here the TOS versions would have just been bigger by virtue of nacelle and arrangement, combined with the saucer being a little bigger in diameter and the secondary hull being longer. (One might rationalize this as being easy via the rebuild/rearrangement of pressure compartments.

Doing a little math:

TOS Enterprise: 2573 px
Refit Enterprise: 2392 px

12 ft/31 px = .387 ft/px
9.5 ft/22 px = .432 ft/px

TOS:
2573 px * .387 = 995.8ft = 303.5 meters
2573 px * .432 = 1111.5ft = 338.8 meters

Average: 321.2 meters

Refit:
2392 px * .387 = 925.7 ft = 282 meters
2392 px * .432 = 1033.3 ft = 314.9 meters

Average: 298.5 meters

Interesting that using this model, the two's official sizes are basically switched.

They gain a few meters, but still.

anh165 wrote: View Post
467 meters still for me.

It doesnt look twice the size in ST3 when the Enterprise escapes space dock.
Ballot counted, but I disagree on your second point. There's nowhere we actually see the two side by side other than TUC, and I've already gone down that path. Granted, it's all a little squishy.

Mytran wrote: View Post
Depends on the size of the refit
Heh, indeed. Thanks to that squish factor, it doesn't matter too much anymore.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Is there a chance I can still see a size comparison where the size of the hull markings are matched (i.e. saucer letters, engineering hull pennant)?

Bob
Ask and ye shall receive.



The scaling works out a little differently between the top (registry letters) and side (Starfleet logo.) It could also be different if you scale by the ship's name, but I didn't go there.

Doing a little math:

Excelsior - 1878 px
Enterprise (side) - 975 px
Enterprise (top) - 1143 px

If 622 Excelsior:
622/1878 = .3312
.3312 * 975 = 322.9 meter Enterprise by side/symbol scaling
.3312 * 1143 = 378.6 meter Enterprise by top/letter scaling

Average: 350.8 meter Enterprise (The Enterprise is 40% of the Excelsior's size here.)

Now, if we choose to accept a 305 meter Enterprise...

If 305 Enterprise (by symbol/side):
305/975 = .3128
.3128 * 1878 = 587.5 meter Excelsior

If 305 Enterprise (by letter/top):
305/1143 = .2668
.2668 * 1878 = 501.1 meter Excelsior

Average: 544.3 meter Excelsior (The Enterprise is 56% of the Excelsior's size here.)

kennysmith wrote: View Post
please i am trying to give you this, the only starship i need a lot of info is from the TOS starship only and not no, A, B, C, D, E, or none of the movies from ST1, ST2, ST3, or even ST4 OR 5.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're asking for. You're wanting more information about the size of the TOS ship?
__________________
"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 15 2013, 06:41 AM   #457
zDarby
Lieutenant
 
Location: NorCal
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

I find it interesting that the Ent-D and Excelcior might be so close in length. Indeed I wonder if it could be coincidence. They're not even that far apart in draft. Do you think there might be a Panamax effect happening here? (Panamax --max vol to fit in Panama Canal.) Some sort of convenience that made a voluntary physical limitation to the length of starships that took hold for 60 years? Are there any ships we know of that exceeded that length betweeen Excel and Gal eras? It would explain the relatively strange placement of the Galaxy nacelles. What other vessel --besides Nebula-- attaches the nacelle so far back on the pylon?

On another topic, assuming impulse is a a fusion rocket, the exhaust is very likely centered on the ships' center of mass both port-n-starboard and alow-n-aloft, though not necessarily fore-n-aft. That means it should be possible to deduce the relative masses --and therefor densities-- of saucer, engineering and nacelles of at least some vessels, including Constitution and her refit; this should tell us something about the difference in construction between the two, especially nacelle density. This last data point might imply if the warp reactors were inboard or nacelle bound.

Wha'cha think?
zDarby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 15 2013, 03:28 PM   #458
anh165
Commander
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post


Ballot counted, but I disagree on your second point. There's nowhere we actually see the two side by side other than TUC, and I've already gone down that path. Granted, it's all a little squishy.

Not the most accurate picture as the excelsior is abit further away and during the footage it cuts back to the bridge, but you can see even so the Enterprise is considerably more than half the size of the Excelsior.


__________________
No animals were harmed during posting ...
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 15 2013, 03:47 PM   #459
anh165
Commander
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Made another one with the Enterprise slightly further back:

Perhaps the Excelsior *on screen* really is much bigger than 467 meters!

__________________
No animals were harmed during posting ...
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16 2013, 09:02 AM   #460
bgeorge
Cadet
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

I really don’t think there is a definitive answer to this question. The only description we had at the time was that it was “souped-up” and bigger than the Enterprise. The size the miniature was built to, was determined by the camera guys as being the optimal size to shoot. As I recall NIlo did that size comparison chart, but it wasn’t necessarily followed. The issue of true scale wasn’t a consideration. Budget, ease of use, art direction and dramatic intent were what influenced the construction of the ship. The current techniques of the ILM model shop also swayed the look of the ship. If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago) some of the detail in the landing bay and the grid frisket patterns used on the hull were left over under-construction Death Star etched brass. Nilo Rodis and Dave Carson had done a number of designs for the ship that I had built quickie prototypes of. I did finish a bit early and Nilo told me I could take a crack at one myself. When they were presented to Nimoy he chose the one I did because I think it looked the most like the Enterprise. Although the prototype had the basic look of the final ship it was a bit frumpy. The model shop supervisor, Steve Gawley, passed the prototype over to Mike Cochrane (I think) who under Steve’s guidance did a beautiful set of blueprints. He really improved and polished the design. The model was built directly from those drawings.
Someone mentioned the size of the spacedock doors and how the Excelsior could never fit through them. It’s funny how we never even considered that! The Enterprise was scaled to the doors to make it a dramatic exit. That space dock interior was really a piece of crap. I came up with the idea of doing artwork and large size prints to use as wallpaper for the interior detailing and that stuff was always peeling off. Another funny memory of that set was that it was like a giant “whisper dish” like you would experience at a science museum. If you were on one side talking your voice would be super loud on the other. We farted a lot on that set to much hilarity!

Many years later the Excelsior came back to ILM to be re-fitted as the Enterprise B. The upper part of the primary hull and the lower part of the secondary hull were completely replaced. Those piece of the ship were changed enough that replacement was easier that retrofitting. Also, the fiberglass of both of those sections was starting to buckle. In case you are wondering, the original hull pieces do still exist. ☺ I’m sorry I couldn’t be of more help. From the comments I have read here you all know a lot more about this issue than I do. Cheers.
bgeorge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16 2013, 11:52 AM   #461
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Thank you very much Mr. George for taking the time to share these production backgrounds and anecdotes with us. Very insight- and delightful!

bgeorge wrote: View Post
If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago) some of the detail in the landing bay and the grid frisket patterns used on the hull were left over under-construction Death Star etched brass.
Earlier in this thread there were discussions what the stern chasm in the lower engineering hull might be useful for. It looks like you just provided the answer.

Can we conclude from your statement that the aft hangar on top was envisioned for smaller, onboard vehicles and the one in the chasm for bigger ships, similar to the hangar bay of an Imperial Star Destroyer?

Bob

P.S.
Thanks to Maurice for getting in touch with you!
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Robert Comsol; November 16 2013 at 07:52 PM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16 2013, 06:04 PM   #462
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Whoa! Did Bill George himself just post?!?!? Awesome!

Your work on Bladerunner, Star Trek, and Star Wars has been the main inspiration of my hobbies. In fact, for a while I was seriously trying to get into visual effects (but I shoulda been born 15 years earlier, everything is computers these days, and I like the hands-on models.) The whole story about your Y-Wing model is one of my favorite yarns from the industry.

It's a pleasure to be on the same BBS as you! Don't be a stranger!

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16 2013, 09:13 PM   #463
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

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.
Lemme buy you coffee when you're back.
__________________
* * *
"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 16 2013, 09:59 PM   #464
Lord Garth, FOI
Commander
 
Lord Garth, FOI's Avatar
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

This is getting even cooler now
Lord Garth, FOI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17 2013, 03:06 AM   #465
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Holy crap it's Bill George! I started reading the post before I saw the user name, and then did a double take.

Mr. George, as the instigator of this, let me just echo Bob and Albertese's comments. Your work speaks for itself, and as one of the Excelsior's fathers I must thank you. I've had a minor love affair with your ship for many years now, and her timeless lines are why I've been obsessed with her all these years. For Excelsior and your many other contributions to Trek, sci-fi, and the special effects world in general, I thank you, and I also hope you'll find some time to drop by every now and then!

bgeorge wrote: View Post
I really don’t think there is a definitive answer to this question. The only description we had at the time was that it was “souped-up” and bigger than the Enterprise. The size the miniature was built to, was determined by the camera guys as being the optimal size to shoot. As I recall Nilo did that size comparison chart, but it wasn’t necessarily followed. The issue of true scale wasn’t a consideration. Budget, ease of use, art direction and dramatic intent were what influenced the construction of the ship. The current techniques of the ILM model shop also swayed the look of the ship.
Awesome! This confirms what I suspected about there not really being a precisely pinned down size. Out of curiosity, do you happen to recall whether Mr. Rodis made the chart before or after the model was built?

bgeorge wrote: View Post
If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago) some of the detail in the landing bay and the grid frisket patterns used on the hull were left over under-construction Death Star etched brass.
So it is a landing bay after all! Woot. I'd echo Bob's question as to whether the intent was that it would function much like a Star Destroyer landing bay.

bgeorge wrote: View Post
Nilo Rodis and Dave Carson had done a number of designs for the ship that I had built quickie prototypes of. I did finish a bit early and Nilo told me I could take a crack at one myself. When they were presented to Nimoy he chose the one I did because I think it looked the most like the Enterprise. Although the prototype had the basic look of the final ship it was a bit frumpy.
I've read before that you consciously tried to give the Excelsior a Japanese flair, which I think is awesome. I hadn't realized that you had built all of the prototype models, but I knew that the one that was ultimately selected was all your doing.

bgeorge wrote: View Post
The model shop supervisor, Steve Gawley, passed the prototype over to Mike Cochrane (I think) who under Steve’s guidance did a beautiful set of blueprints. He really improved and polished the design. The model was built directly from those drawings.
Dare I ask whether those blueprints might sit in some ILM archive somewhere?

bgeorge wrote: View Post
Someone mentioned the size of the spacedock doors and how the Excelsior could never fit through them. It’s funny how we never even considered that! The Enterprise was scaled to the doors to make it a dramatic exit.
You guys did a better job than you think. I was just re-examining the Enterprise's breakaway scene, the one shot from above and behind as she backed out and started to pivot, and it looks in that scene like the doors are around 150% to 175% the width of the Enterprise, so depending just how much bigger she was, Excelsior should probably still fit.

bgeorge wrote: View Post
That space dock interior was really a piece of crap. I came up with the idea of doing artwork and large size prints to use as wallpaper for the interior detailing and that stuff was always peeling off. Another funny memory of that set was that it was like a giant “whisper dish” like you would experience at a science museum. If you were on one side talking your voice would be super loud on the other. We farted a lot on that set to much hilarity!
In spacedock, everyone can hear you fart.

I think you guys did good... I mean, that set was huge. I hadn't realized until seeing a photo of some folks, probably including yourself, standing within it just how big it was!

bgeorge wrote: View Post
Many years later the Excelsior came back to ILM to be re-fitted as the Enterprise B. The upper part of the primary hull and the lower part of the secondary hull were completely replaced. Those piece of the ship were changed enough that replacement was easier that retrofitting. Also, the fiberglass of both of those sections was starting to buckle. In case you are wondering, the original hull pieces do still exist. ☺ I’m sorry I couldn’t be of more help. From the comments I have read here you all know a lot more about this issue than I do. Cheers.
Interesting, I had wondered about the upper part of the saucer being different. Just how much of the lower part of the secondary hull was replaced? Lately, studying the Excelsior vs. the Enteprise-B versions of the model, I've started to wonder whether the secondary hull window patterns aren't vastly different. I've also noticed that the windows on the saucer superstructure seem to be a bit higher on the B.

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.
Lemme buy you coffee when you're back.
Thanks for summoning Mr. George for us, Maurice! I wish I could buy you both a coffee. And thanks for pointing out the porthole sizing. I shall have to do some mathing.

Backing up a bit after that special guest appearance...

zDarby wrote: View Post
I find it interesting that the Ent-D and Excelcior might be so close in length. Indeed I wonder if it could be coincidence. They're not even that far apart in draft. Do you think there might be a Panamax effect happening here? (Panamax --max vol to fit in Panama Canal.) Some sort of convenience that made a voluntary physical limitation to the length of starships that took hold for 60 years? Are there any ships we know of that exceeded that length betweeen Excel and Gal eras? It would explain the relatively strange placement of the Galaxy nacelles. What other vessel --besides Nebula-- attaches the nacelle so far back on the pylon?

On another topic, assuming impulse is a a fusion rocket, the exhaust is very likely centered on the ships' center of mass both port-n-starboard and alow-n-aloft, though not necessarily fore-n-aft. That means it should be possible to deduce the relative masses --and therefor densities-- of saucer, engineering and nacelles of at least some vessels, including Constitution and her refit; this should tell us something about the difference in construction between the two, especially nacelle density. This last data point might imply if the warp reactors were inboard or nacelle bound.

Wha'cha think?
Hm some interesting notions there. Regarding the former, what would you suppose the limiting factor to be?

anh165 wrote: View Post
Made another one with the Enterprise slightly further back:

Perhaps the Excelsior *on screen* really is much bigger than 467 meters!

You know, looking at them there, it seems like the Enterprise in the left image and Excelsior in the right image might be at around the same spot, and at the very least their deflector dishes look to be about the same size. I'm thinking the scaling matches up with the TUC scene fairly closely there.
__________________
"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
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
excelsior, uss excelsior

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:11 PM.

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