The Excelsior - uncovering the design

[yotsuya]

But let's get back to looking at how I approached the Excelsior and how I am sticking to that approach for all the other ships.

What determines scale? Well, there is canon for one. For another it is the details on the model. Excelsior scales to 467 in both cases. The edge of the saucer is the same as the Enterprise refit, just the opposite angle. And on the model wall in TNG, they are all scaled to the CVN-65, the same ship that the TOS Enterprise was scaled to in TMOST. Also, the scale of the TMP refit is not just determined by some random number. The sets and matte paintings and FX shots were carefully constructed. We see the hanger from inside and out. We have docking ports where we can scale the doors (5 of them). Then we have the egress elevator they used to get out on the hull when they reach V'ger. These all scale to the same thing. The only thing we have on Excelsior is a few rows of windows on the secondary hull that feel too close. The deck height would have to be about 7 feet. Not very comfortable, but if we extrapolate the design of the TMP refit, this should be the cargo area. Cargo areas could have warehouse style flooring. We see this in TMP, but the deck spacing is spacious. But perhaps there is a reason for less space in this area of Excelsior. It is hard to put in words what I envision in my head.

When we get into the TNG world, the ship designs that appear have longer vertical windows. This sets the scale for all those designs. Both in terms of the spacing and window size. The Galaxy, Ambassador, and Nebula classes all follow the same window pattern. And the Galaxy, Sovereign, and Intrepid classes were all designed in exacting scale, like the TMP refit. So their sizes are know and certain. While they only built a limited number of sets, the sets they did build fit in the designed exterior. Except the Ent D hanger. Ignore the hanger. The reused ships and side ships were not always as carefully scaled.

The bridge. Here is why what it looks like and its size and placement don't matter. In 1964 Matt Jefferies designed the bridge set very carefully to fit in the upper dome on the saucer. We see (in 1964 quality FX) the bridge in the dome. This stays true for the second pilot. Then they cut the model down (the windows added in lighting process provided the line to cut the entire bridge down) and the only way to fit the bridge in at that point, is to lower it. We see from the 1968 TMOST cross section that is what Jefferies intended. Then on to Phase II and TMP and the dome fits the bridge again. All good through Star Trek IV. Then in Star Trek V they have to build a new bridge set and they don't give quite as much attention to if it will fit. The Star Trek V bridge might just fit. Might. The Star Trek VI bridge will not. So again to put the interior and exterior in agreement, you have to lower the bridge.

So we come to the Excelsior. The original bridge on this model fools people. It looks so short. Well, the platform it sits on is too short for a deck so it is part of the bridge structure. The bridge we see should fit under that dome with the extra space. Plus the top of the next deck is angled which adds a couple more feet. Then Bill George changed it for Star Trek VI, as well as the hanger front. Neither of these changes is in scale with the rest of the ship. For that bridge to fit the set the ship would have to be longer than the Galaxy class. Roddenberry was dead set against that. That also doesn't fit with the design of the saucer edge. So that means that this bridge structure is just the external structure covering the bridge, not the bridge itself. The bridge itself is sunken. And were do we again find that concept? The Galaxy and Nebula classes. Their bridge is sunken as well. So the sunken bridge is a common concept in Starfleet. A concept that disconnects the exterior design of the bridge from the actual bridge underneath.

So when we look at the Centaur or Discovery Enterprise, the models should tell us the scale. They do. The Centaur features many TNG era windows. Examining the ship design in light of those windows and the hanger leads to scale the ship at the scale of the Excelsior parts. The windows are the right size and line up to actual decks in the Excelsior scale. The bridge is just a dome over whatever bridge is inside. The hanger is key. That hanger is barely large enough for standard shuttles at the Excelsior scale. It would be nearly useless at a smaller scale.

The various kitbashes made from various Galaxy era parts are pretty consistent in their scale when you look at the windows. The windows clearly indicate that most of those kitbashes are much smaller ships. Definitely not in scale with the galaxy class even though they are using those parts.

Every ship design has something that will clearly indicate its sale. Sometimes a particular design as multiple items and multiple possible scales. I feel we have to pick on and I lean toward consistency in appearance. I think starfleet tends to modular construction so given hull areas in common, that is the first thing to look at. Then windows, they other features.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's either a window or a screen. If it's a window it's on the outside of the hull. Today again you're showing looks like a screen which means there is no inside to outside correspondence. That also isn't a cannon image, it's a fan recreation. I compared the window on the bridge set to the apparent window on the outside of the ship. Scaled that way the Enterprise in Discovery is approximately 350 m. That's the way Eaves drew it next to Jeffrey's original. The CG artist after that upscaled it for no apparent reason other than to make it bigger. And in doing so they apparently had to disconnect the window from the outside of the ship and make it a view screen. Again carelessness. In attention to detail. Exactly the opposite of how TOS and TMP were made.

As others have said, it's a window with a holographic HUD, and that's not a fan recreation but a shot of the actual CG model used in the show, from the Eaglemoss magazine.

You're confusing "they did things I personally wish they hadn't" (which is understandable and valid) with carelessness.

 

[yotsuya]

As others have said, it's a window with a holographic HUD, and that's not a fan recreation but a shot of the actual CG model used in the show, from the Eaglemoss magazine.

You're confusing "they did things I personally wish they hadn't" (which is understandable and valid) with carelessness.

No, there is some very obvious carelessness in their production. It has little to do with how I wish they'd done it. If they'd done it how I wished, it would be the Jefferies/Datin Enterprise, not Eaves redesign.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

While there is definite carelessness in the production (turbolift crazytown and thousands of fighters being deployed), Eaves and his team were anything but careless in drafting the Discoprise. I may not like all their decisions, but the bridge window is a bizarre two story window that we see only the top of as seen in their BTS picture upthread. It was from the get-go, designed to be bigger. Great care was put into the placement of the windows and their dimensions, in order to match the general placement on the TOS Enterprise, but then use the sawtooth design from Discovery, etc. But they have detailed accounts (including images with notes and dimensions) of sizing everything as large, too large for my taste as well, but it certainly wasn't careless.

 

[yotsuya]

While there is definite carelessness in the production (turbolift crazytown and thousands of fighters being deployed), Eaves and his team were anything but careless in drafting the Discoprise. I may not like all their decisions, but the bridge window is a bizarre two story window that we see only the top of as seen in their BTS picture upthread. It was from the get-go, designed to be bigger. Great care was put into the placement of the windows and their dimensions, in order to match the general placement on the TOS Enterprise, but then use the sawtooth design from Discovery, etc. But they have detailed accounts (including images with notes and dimensions) of sizing everything as large, too large for my taste as well, but it certainly wasn't careless.

Eaves design process was very methodical. But what happened after that he was not in control over and is a prime example of how careless the production was. This has happened frequently in Star Trek, though rarely on this important of a ship. I'll just point you to the early Star Trek movies and the use of the Phase II design on the displays and Franz Joseph's deck plans and tech manual as well. So this is nothing new. But it is really bad to introduce a new ship, show the stats on screen from one source, the schematics from another and for the CG model to be a third, all in a short space of time. And don't get me started on how bad they did with the Klingons and other aspects that don't align. They wanted us to take it as the prime timeline and made no effort to even be close. I'm hoping Strange New Worlds treats itself more as a reboot and just focuses on good stories. It is supposed to be more episodic. I'm looking forward to it. We'll see if it lives up to the fantastic glimpses that we had in Discovery.

 

[yotsuya]

See, I have no issue with Eaves design. I like it. I think it is a great reboot design and I look forward to seeing more of it. He did a great job. My issue is with what happened after he turned it over.

This is where he started:

Which led him to here:

And then with Scott Schneider:

And then with more detail the next month:

And then on screen, still Eaves basic design:

And then it shows up on screen with changes (not bad changes, just changes):

An impressive design. But it doesn't need to be 440 meters. And you can see from the front view that you can see the window. It looks like it is proportioned right and the right size and in the right place. But that area was changed in what Eaglemoss has and the above drawing shows. Again, nothing wrong with making these changes, but they should have been made before throwing stuff into the episode that doesn't match. The goal seems to have been to make as many changes as possible. And it wasn't for any legal reasons. That got debunked by CBS directly.

And they did the same thing with Discovery. They released one design and then continued to change it. The earlier one was better in my opinion. I hate the overly long nacelles.

 

[Dukhat]

The design works fine as an intermediate class between the NX-01 and the TOS Enterprise (apropos, since Eaves started with a design he originally came up with for the NX-01 herself.) As the Enterprise herself, the design leaves a lot to be desired. Externally I find it dull, boring and uninspired. The interiors are nice, though.

 

[F. King Daniel]

What we see in the episode has lighting effects, bloom etc. The wireframe does not. That there's a CG bridge inside the little window, intended to sync up with the real world set and obviously scaled to a certain size should be the end of this discussion. Obviously, that's the size.

But Trekkies, right?

 

[Dukhat]

Or more specifically, one Trekkie with an agenda

 

[yotsuya]

What we see in the episode has lighting effects, bloom etc. The wireframe does not. That there's a CG bridge inside the little window, intended to sync up with the real world set and obviously scaled to a certain size should be the end of this discussion. Obviously, that's the size.

But Trekkies, right?

I compared the light of the window we see to the opening on the set and to Eaves design drawings. That scales more to 350 meters than 440 meters. Not my problem the FX team upped the size of the scale and forgot to make the window smaller and move the bridge forward so a window would actually make sense. I'm not responsible for their goof up. Just like I don't accept that different scales for the Defiant or any other ship. You guys make it sound like we have to take what they say in production as canon and that is not what canon is. Canon is first and foremost the body of audio/visual works. But when they make mistakes and change things, then you can go back to production and see what they had to say or what they did. In the case of Centaur, the windows and shuttle bay set the scale. In the Discovery Enterprise it is that window on the bridge and Eaves design drawings. For the Excelsior it is a production chart that was used for the model wall in TNG.

 

[yotsuya]

Or more specifically, one Trekkie with an agenda

My only agenda is logic and making things fit within a reasonable margin. I'm following the same rules for every era and the only thing I'm trying to avoid is the 21st century Trek tendency to bloat ship sizes for silly reasons. And as you see with the Centaur, I don't always go for the smaller size. I'm going for the most logical size for the design. And I'm actually looking at every piece of the design. I did this with the Excelsior (the main topic of this thread) and I do it with all the others. I have no agenda other than gathering together a Star Trek world that follows logic and history (which sometimes is not logical at all) to lead to what we see on screen (which I sometimes find to be in error). And it isn't like I am the only one to examine such things and have an opinion. There are others out there and I don't always agree with them, but sometimes I do. It is all a matter of opinion and having spent years looking into this. I am a draftsman and a model maker so I know what goes into both and I know how to wrestle something logical from the chaos of a Hollywood production. TNG, DS9, Voy, and Ent had the Okudas and Sternbach to keep them in line and avoided a lot of issues, but they still had inconsistent FX even with standardized sizes for the ships. Because if you take what you see on screen, then each ship has nearly as many scales as it does appearances. You have to step back and take some other approach to determining scale other than what you see on the screen. I have my way and I am being very clear about how I go about it and what I look at. Feel free to stop reading this thread if you don't like it. Because this topic is about how I am scaling ships, not what you think the scale should be.

 

[Dukhat]

The most logical scale for the Centaur was what we saw on screen: that it was roughly the same size as the Jem’Hadar fighter. You can rationalize a bigger size all you want, with whatever justification you want (which happens to match your own personal theory on the matter.) That doesn’t change what my eyes saw. The fact that you can’t accept that, or even the testimonial of Adam Buckner, tells me that you have a bias toward your personal pet theory and therefore it’s only valid for you.

And BTW, I happen to be enjoying this thread. I wouldn’t be posting here if the subject matter didn’t interest me. But I would be derelict if I didn’t point out the obvious flaws in your argument.

 

[yotsuya]

The design works fine as an intermediate class between the NX-01 and the TOS Enterprise (apropos, since Eaves started with a design he originally came up with for the NX-01 herself.) As the Enterprise herself, the design leaves a lot to be desired. Externally I find it dull, boring and uninspired. The interiors are nice, though.

Well, we do agree on this. I always like finding common ground.

 

[yotsuya]

The most logical scale for the Centaur was what we saw on screen: that it was roughly the same size as the Jem’Hadar fighter. You can rationalize a bigger size all you want, with whatever justification you want (which happens to match your own personal theory on the matter.) That doesn’t change what my eyes saw. The fact that you can’t accept that, or even the testimonial of Adam Buckner, tells me that you have a bias toward your personal pet theory and therefore it’s only valid for you.

And BTW, I happen to be enjoying this thread. I wouldn’t be posting here if the subject matter didn’t interest me. But I would be derelict if I didn’t point out the obvious flaws in your argument.

I really enjoy discussing it, I just don't enjoy being attacked and accused of ignoring facts when the facts are actually in dispute. I feel that the windows we see on the models very much dictates the scale. Not the size of the windows necessarily, but the type and placement specifically. And I have seen so many instances where the Oberth, Miranda, and Bird of Prey were mis-scaled in FX shots that I can't take what I see in an FX shot at face value. There are too many instances of ships being the wrong scale. So I have to ignore what I see on screen much of the time. So it is my experience that causes our differing opinions about the scale of certain ships. I'm not taking each shot on its own but as part of a larger body where sizing mistakes are common.

 

[Dukhat]

I really enjoy discussing it, I just don't enjoy being attacked and accused of ignoring facts when the facts are actually in dispute. I feel that the windows we see on the models very much dictates the scale. Not the size of the windows necessarily, but the type and placement specifically. And I have seen so many instances where the Oberth, Miranda, and Bird of Prey were mis-scaled in FX shots that I can't take what I see in an FX shot at face value. There are too many instances of ships being the wrong scale. So I have to ignore what I see on screen much of the time. So it is my experience that causes our differing opinions about the scale of certain ships. I'm not taking each shot on its own but as part of a larger body where sizing mistakes are common.

Disagreeing with your opinion and pointing out flaws in your argument is not being attacked.

Here are the facts: (which are not in dispute)

1. Kitbashed models were created for the DS9 sixth season opener "A Time to Stand." Many of these kitbashes were created from parts from Excelsior, Enterprise-A and Reliant model kits, with mismatches in scale. Most of the kitbashes utilizing primarily Excelsior parts seemed to be scaled to the actual Excelsior (the Curry, Raging Queen, Hutzel, etc. and presumably the original version of the Centaur.)

2. Gary Hutzel needed a small ship for a scene where it would be combating the Jem'Hadar fighter. He saw Adam Buckner's Centaur model, asked if Buckner could scale it down, and Buckner did so by adding more detail to the model to make it appear smaller.

3. The only scene showing the Centaur on screen indeed depicts the ship as being roughly the same size as the Jem'Hadar fighter.

4. Buckner also built another kitbash called the Bradford, which utilized the Reliant model as the main hull, with several add-on pieces from other model kits, including the Excelsior shuttlebay part:

https://i.ibb.co/pxNKrB9/DSC-5654.jpg

Was his intention to use that shuttlebay part as an indicator that the Bradford should be scaled to Excelsior proportions? Obviously not, since if it was, then the Bradford would be as large as the Enterprise-D in scale. The ship is obviously meant to scale to the Reliant, and that shuttlebay part is just a random piece that's not meant to scale with the model kit it originated from.

So saying that Buckner used that same shuttlebay on the Centaur to indicate that the ship should be scaled to Excelsior proportions (never mind that it's sitting right in front of the Reliant's bridge dome) is incorrect in my judgment, by observing the facts above. As for the windows, we have no idea if they were on the original version of the model when it was a larger scale, and just became artifacts after the downscaling. Either way, to me it's not enough of an indication that the final version of the ship is still supposed to be Excelsior sized. Fact #3 disputes this anyway, regardless of the windows. You say that you have to ignore what you see on screen much of the time...so why can't you ignore the Centaur's windows when all of the facts above prove that the ship as seen on screen was meant to be small?

If you want to use non-canon sources such as the incorrect depiction of the Centaur published by Eaglemoss for your pet theory, you're free to do so. Yet again, I never said you couldn't. But the facts are NOT in dispute as far as canon is concerned.

 

[yotsuya]

Disagreeing with your opinion and pointing out flaws in your argument is not being attacked.

Here are the facts: (which are not in dispute)

1. Kitbashed models were created for the DS9 sixth season opener "A Time to Stand." Many of these kitbashes were created from parts from Excelsior, Enterprise-A and Reliant model kits, with mismatches in scale. Most of the kitbashes utilizing primarily Excelsior parts seemed to be scaled to the actual Excelsior (the Curry, Raging Queen, Hutzel, etc. and presumably the original version of the Centaur.)

2. Gary Hutzel needed a small ship for a scene where it would be combating the Jem'Hadar fighter. He saw Adam Buckner's Centaur model, asked if Buckner could scale it down, and Buckner did so by adding more detail to the model to make it appear smaller.

3. The only scene showing the Centaur on screen indeed depicts the ship as being roughly the same size as the Jem'Hadar fighter.

4. Buckner also built another kitbash called the Bradford, which utilized the Reliant model as the main hull, with several add-on pieces from other model kits, including the Excelsior shuttlebay part:

https://i.ibb.co/pxNKrB9/DSC-5654.jpg

Was his intention to use that shuttlebay part as an indicator that the Bradford should be scaled to Excelsior proportions? Obviously not, since if it was, then the Bradford would be as large as the Enterprise-D in scale. The ship is obviously meant to scale to the Reliant, and that shuttlebay part is just a random piece that's not meant to scale with the model kit it originated from.

So saying that Buckner used that same shuttlebay on the Centaur to indicate that the ship should be scaled to Excelsior proportions (never mind that it's sitting right in front of the Reliant's bridge dome) is incorrect in my judgment, by observing the facts above. As for the windows, we have no idea if they were on the original version of the model when it was a larger scale, and just became artifacts after the downscaling. Either way, to me it's not enough of an indication that the final version of the ship is still supposed to be Excelsior sized. Fact #3 disputes this anyway, regardless of the windows. You say that you have to ignore what you see on screen much of the time...so why can't you ignore the Centaur's windows when all of the facts above prove that the ship as seen on screen was meant to be small?

If you want to use non-canon sources such as the incorrect depiction of the Centaur published by Eaglemoss for your pet theory, you're free to do so. Yet again, I never said you couldn't. But the facts are NOT in dispute as far as canon is concerned.

You discount the windows, I discount the scale we seen on screen. We each have our reasons. And the fact that you keep mentioning that Buckner rescaled it for that later episode. But the shuttle bay is, according to him, supposed to be a shuttlebay. At the Reliant scale it is barely large enough for a shuttle to even fit in there. It is more the size of the worker bees, travel pods, or the later type 15 shuttle pod. At the Excelsior scale it is large enough for normal shuttles without a problem. So the model is mainly Excelsior parts, with windows that fit at the larger scale and a shuttle bay that needs the larger scale to be practical. I can find no reason to go with the smaller scale. The larger looking bridge piece raises the bridge to be over the shuttle bay and at the Excelsior scale can fit the bridge and another deck below it. And with the greebles and the shuttle bay in front, the details (and original scale) of that bridge piece are obscured.

I will agree there are facts regarding this model, but they are contradictory and you are throwing out something I consider important and and I am throwing out something you consider important. It is clear we find different pieces of information more important in regard to that model, and likely others. One other that drives me is that most ships we see follow the hull design for scale. All the ships that use the Constitution class saucer are scaled to that saucer. All the ships that use the many windowed Galaxy class saucer are scaled to it. So it stands to reason that a ship with an Excelsior Class saucer should be scaled to that if there are other indicators it should be that size. There was a whole bunch of Galaxy based kitbashes that were done at a different scale, but they were very clearly done at a different scale due to the window size and placement. And the windows on the Centaur model fit with that judgement when you take it at Excelsior scale. I know I won't convince you because you consider the screen appearance more important, but I hope you can see my reasoning as well and why that screen scale means nothing to me.

 

[Dukhat]

When did Buckner say that part on the Centaur was supposed to be a shuttlebay?

And I see nothing contradictory with my facts. The only contradictory thing is that Eaglemoss made the ship a different scale than the intended small scale of the model as shown in the episode.

Clearly we are not going to see eye to eye on this matter, so I’m willing to let it drop.

 

[137th Gebirg]

For the record, the Centaur scale change predates the Eaglemoss model. The DeAgostini ST Fact Files (published in the UK) first showed the Centaur in the new up-scaled configuration, which I believe was later duplicated in the US-published official magazine. However, those orthos were rendered with perspective distortion (foreshortening) turned on for the fore & aft views. Eaglemoss cleaned up the renders (and gave them a different light source) for the latest model release and made them true orthographic renders with no distortion.

Original DeAgostini STFF render:


Latest Eaglemoss render:

 

[yotsuya]

When did Buckner say that part on the Centaur was supposed to be a shuttlebay?

And I see nothing contradictory with my facts. The only contradictory thing is that Eaglemoss made the ship a different scale than the intended small scale of the model as shown in the episode.

Clearly we are not going to see eye to eye on this matter, so I’m willing to let it drop.

He said it on his own blog. http://adambuckner.com/USS_Buckner.html
So my scaling is based on the windows (added by Gary Hutzel) the shuttle bay ("And yes, the shuttle bay is a shuttle bay.") added by Buckner himself. And the windows were seen on screen (at least on the bottom) which makes them as valid in scaling them as anything else.

 

[yotsuya]

I could compile a list of the places that have the Centaur class scaled at 381 meters. I think the original source is the DS9 Tech manual. Considering the writers, a lot of it is considered virtually canon, though they did get a lot of the measurements wrong (such as the width of this one which is 100 m too wide for the length and the length of the Excelsior class).