The Excelsior - uncovering the design

[Dukhat]

Sorry, I really don’t see the point of continuing to banter back and forth about this. You just keep repeating the same things over and over even after evidence to the contrary, flipping back and forth about what you consider fact and opinion, seeing things that aren’t there, etc. and we’re not going to convince each other of anything. So this is the end of the Centaur scale conversation between you and I. Anyone else is welcome to talk about it.

 

[yotsuya]

Sorry, I really don’t see the point of continuing to banter back and forth about this. You just keep repeating the same things over and over even after evidence to the contrary, flipping back and forth about what you consider fact and opinion, seeing things that aren’t there, etc. and we’re not going to convince each other of anything. So this is the end of the Centaur scale conversation between you and I. Anyone else is welcome to talk about it.

I keep talking about it because you keep claiming you have the correct interpretation of the evidence. You have one of many interpretations. My take has just as much evidence backing it up as yours.

And that is really the entire point I have been trying to make. Centaur, Excelsior, Defiant, you name it. Star Trek is full of things that can have multiple canonical interpretations because what we see isn't easy to interpret or because of contradicting information. I have laid out my reasoning (and to make a point I did it again using only what we can see in the episode, though I have not created the graphics to show the measurements behind parts of it) and my sources and it is just as valid as any differing opinions. There is no evidence that proves most of these things. Only tantalizing tidbits that provide glimpses. It is fiction. There is no reason for them to nail down every single thing. That stifles creativity. Some of us fans want a nice orderly world and we each have to find what we think that order is. Where the facts exist we can use them. Where they don't we have to use what we have. It starts with what we see on screen and then behind the scenes sources, and then production sources, and then patterns and logic (at least for me). What exists beyond canon is all head canon. Yours, mine, Roddenberry's. None of them rise to the level of facts or proof or canon. This is an area where we need to either reach a consensus or practice IDIC.

I am perfectly willing to let anyone have their opinion, but I do object to opinion being touted as evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence in any of those episodes of the scale of the Centaur class. The only evidence is that the Centaur class is larger than the Jem Hadar fighter. After that it is anyone's guess. You can't see the hanger, you can't see the bridge, you can't see the details of the Reliant weapons pod, you can't see much except in that one shot of the bottom of the saucer, so there isn't a lot to go on just in the episodes. Bring in the model and you get more information. For you, you can see the bridge which you say sets the scale for you. For me, I can see that hanger which sets the scale for me (and more windows). Two different opinions and no proof that either one is right, not from canon sources.

 

[Unicron]

The Saladin class deck plans solved this much earlier by putting very small hangers on the under side of the saucer where the TMP refit has the airlocks. Given my deck layout that would be workable, but very tight. As drawn it is cool, but I don't think it works. Jim Botaitis just did an update to the FJ/TOS era ships and he has his own take on the shuttle bay. Both can be found over on https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main2.php

Interesting! Thanks for the links. I got the impression from the Botaitis set (and I might be wrong) that the shuttles are intended to launch at a sort of back angle, sort of like where the Galaxy's impulse engines are located on its design. I admit to me that doesn't seem quite as useful as Jackill's dorsal elevator or the ventral saucer ones on the other blueprint set. Perhaps when the Saladins were refitted to the Jenghiz version (Jackill) the hangers were relocated?

 

[yotsuya]

Interesting! Thanks for the links. I got the impression from the Botaitis set (and I might be wrong) that the shuttles are intended to launch at a sort of back angle, sort of like where the Galaxy's impulse engines are located on its design. I admit to me that doesn't seem quite as useful as Jackill's dorsal elevator or the ventral saucer ones on the other blueprint set. Perhaps when the Saladins were refitted to the Jenghiz version (Jackill) the hangers were relocated?

The old Saladin hangers are under the saucer in front. The Botaitis plans have the hangers on top in back. Both at about 45 degrees to either side. The lower hanger is cool, but tiny. The upper hanger is a much better design.

 

[Unicron]

It seems like it's a different 45 degrees for each version - the lower ones are more forward oriented and the upper ones seem more rear oriented. But I agree with you, generally the upper ones seem like a better option. One set of blueprints completely ignored any shuttle option since there's no hangar, so hopefully the transporters work.

 

[publiusr]

There is a nice thread over at Starship Modeler with some photos I haven’t seen before

 

[yotsuya]

I really need to get the cross section finalized. I think I have nailed down the level of detail to include. I have a good template in one of the movie Refit cross sections. But I really need to get this done because I have come to the realization that for my larger project, I need to do the Constellation and Amabassador Classes as well. And I probably should do some layer changes to the main drawings as well. I have a nice consistent template in how I have done the TOS and Phase II (and will do the TMP refit) so I think I want to revise these Excelsior drawings to match. Plus the scale is larger and the detail finer.

 

[publiusr]

Looking forward to seeing this!

 

[137th Gebirg]

Me too.

 

[yotsuya]

Several surprised have come up in regards to the Excelsior. The first one is the details of the top of the saucer. I'm amazed that one of the oldest versions has remained the most accurate. The FASA model got the grid of the saucer right. They failed to get the recessed ring under the saucer right, but the did get the grid and the recess in front of the neck more correct than anyone else has. Some of the proportions on it are horrible, but some of those details are amazingly accurate. But then, if they had high quality photos of the model, which I know were taken for Star Trek III, those details are very plain.

But even so, it took a lot of work to go from what FASA had to what it really is. The FASA miniature (in the scale of 1" = 100 meters making the model 4.67 inches long) has the upper grid divided by 22 (16.363636 degrees between grid lines) and the bottom divided by 24 (15 degrees). While that is close, it took a lot of studying photos to arrive at the accurate degree. The top grid is 16.2 and the bottom is 14.7. It is clear when you try to line up the two grids. And very clear when you have good measurements for the saucer and the impulse deck. And the grid lines remained constant from the original saucer to the replacement. Meaning they were scribed before it was cast. The windows were all changed and the Enterprise B variant has a different window pattern along the edge of the saucer. But same grid, same phaser placement, and same RCS placement.

And the lines for the impulse deck were very complex. Most models have the top as flat, but it is anything but. The top section slopes down from the center and down at the back. The impulse engines themselves slope down to the side, forward, and the side slope inward at the top. A lot of complex small angles. We are lucky to have such detailed photos of the model that reveal so much of its complex design. And I am grateful to ILM for their CG model in Generations. Some of the details of the design are not clear except in screen captures of that CG model. I have independently verified them in other photos, but the only clear view to see the shape are those CG shots.

And where the 1701/1701-A model has those grooved around the edge of the saucer, the Excelsior just has painted lines. And while the grid lines on the bottom of the saucer divide the segments into 14.7 degrees, the windows and the center dome and sensor package are aligned to the 60 degree line, so they don't line up nicely. So many of the small details worked together to tell me where things needed to go. You look at the oddities of the model and then at how they turned out in a drawing and find the drawing matches the model and you know you have success.

 

[publiusr]

FASA did good work.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Indeed they did. I miss those days.

 

[yotsuya]

One thing about the Excelsior is when Starfleet ordered more and how long construction took. The 2nd Excelsior we see chronologically is 1701-B. Now, the Galaxy Class (much larger and 80 years later) takes 10 years to build. I've been assuming the Constitution Class took 5 years to build. So how long should and Excelsior Class take? Also 5 years? 6, 7, 8? I think no more than 7. So if the 1701-B was launched in 2293, that means it had to have been started in 2286. Unlike the Constellation Class where we have 3 ships with some dates to piece together, for the Excelsior we don't have much early history. We do have 4 ships with registries in the 25xx range. There are some outliers, but then we have 14xxx, 389xx, 42xxx. That coves 19 out of 29 ships in canon. The way I look at registries, that means the class was doing well and they ordered more as they needed more (fleet expansion to loss replacement). So at least 4 major orders. Possibly hundreds of ships over a long period.

One of the other questions is what a Registry means. Is it a construction number or truly a registration number. If it is tied to the construction then the number should never change. Each ship would have a unique registry (the ones ending in a letter would actually have a different unique registry). But if they are truly registration numbers, a ship that is decomissioned and put in the reserve fleet could be recomissioned later and given a new name and registration. I personally think this is what happens. I think that the Enteprise B and Lakota are the same ship. Ent B was retired for the Ambassador class ship and later they pulled it out and gave it a registration number and new name. It would make a lot of sense for some of those higher registration numbers. And there is quite a history of Navies renaming ships and changing their registration numbers.

So, of the 29 Excelsior Class ships in Canon (I'm including 2 Hoods), we have 2 in the 2286 to 2293 era, 3 just before TNG, and the rest are in the TNG/DS9/Voyager era. Only 4 of the registry numbers are old enough to be from the same era as Excelsior and Ent B and part of the original production run. So the Ent B likely would have had a 25xx number if it hadn't been named Enterprise. Maybe 2531?

But the main question that this is leading to is how many total Excelsior Class ships do you think were built? From what we see, My guess is something like 1000. But I'm more interested in what everyone else thinks.

 

[Unicron]

I've often tended to assume the build time for classes would be potentially less, especially with the use of industrial replicator technology. Scotty says that the TMP refit took 18 months to upgrade the Enterprise and the ship hadn't been given a proper shakedown with the V'ger crisis (as demonstrated with some systems not working well like the transporters). So for my own head canon construction might take a year or two at least, but not necessarily as long as 5-10 years normally. That's just me.

But it's also motivated partly by liking the idea of a bigger fleet with perhaps a significant number of builds/conversions in some of the main classes like destroyers, cruisers and frigates. To account for some of the build numbers seen in some of the fan/offscreen sources, I think a quicker build cycle makes more sense.

 

[yotsuya]

I've often tended to assume the build time for classes would be potentially less, especially with the use of industrial replicator technology. Scotty says that the TMP refit took 18 months to upgrade the Enterprise and the ship hadn't been given a proper shakedown with the V'ger crisis (as demonstrated with some systems not working well like the transporters). So for my own head canon construction might take a year or two at least, but not necessarily as long as 5-10 years normally. That's just me.

But it's also motivated partly by liking the idea of a bigger fleet with perhaps a significant number of builds/conversions in some of the main classes like destroyers, cruisers and frigates. To account for some of the build numbers seen in some of the fan/offscreen sources, I think a quicker build cycle makes more sense.

See, I see the spaceframe as the hard part that takes time. The part of the Enterprise that was modified, not replaced. So that reduced the refit time. Plus this is Scotty, who always does things faster than scheduled. I would expect a regular build to take around 5 years from empty spacedock to the ship completing its shakedown cruise.

 

[Henoch]

I'm with @yotsuya on this point; about 5 years to build a new TMP-Enterprise or Excelsior. For what it's worth, a modern super carrier takes about 5 years to build (without delays which can push it out to 12 years). Using the Nu-Enterprise example, the ship was partially built (space frame was complete plus more) when Kirk joined Starfleet, and about 3-4 years later, she was in space still with that new ship smell.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

she was in space still with that new ship smell.

Is that new StarShip smell similar to the "New Car" smell?

 

[Vale]

If it takes 20 years to build a Galaxy-class ship, and a Galaxy-class ship is ~25 times the volume of a refit Constitution-class and ~6.7 times the volume of an Excelsior class, then assuming equivalent production methods it should only take about 10 months to build a Constitution-class ship and about 3 years to build an Excelsior-class ship.

For comparison, it takes between three and four years to build a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier.

 

[yotsuya]

If it takes 20 years to build a Galaxy-class ship, and a Galaxy-class ship is ~25 times the volume of a refit Constitution-class and ~6.7 times the volume of an Excelsior class, then assuming equivalent production methods it should only take about 10 months to build a Constitution-class ship and about 3 years to build an Excelsior-class ship.

For comparison, it takes between three and four years to build a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier.

The next generation tech manual says 10 years for a Galaxy class. And I wouldn't go by volume. Volume gets into some pretty sticky calculations. I would go by the size of the space frame to start with. Because that's what everything starts from. But such a large ship requires some extra measures to make the space frame strong enough. That's why I think it would take so long. It becomes a lot more about the way the components fit together. Same thing with an extra large airplane. There's some challenges with making something so big that don't exist with making something smaller. And while the Excelsior is a fairly long ship, it's not that volume us compared to the Galaxy class, or even the Ambassador class. Those are two very large classes, as is the Sovereign. Even if you want to expand Excelsior class to one of the larger scales, it's still a fairly small ship compared to the those three. And given the increase in technology and materials in the 40 years between when the Constitution was built in the Excelsior, both of them having about the same build times makes sense.

 

[Vale]

The next generation tech manual says 10 years for a Galaxy class.

Actually it says 13 years for actual construction, with 2 years of component fabrication immediately beforehand. 20 years includes the full R&D period prior to starting construction.

And I wouldn't go by volume. Volume gets into some pretty sticky calculations. I would go by the size of the space frame to start with. Because that's what everything starts from. But such a large ship requires some extra measures to make the space frame strong enough. That's why I think it would take so long. It becomes a lot more about the way the components fit together. Same thing with an extra large airplane. There's some challenges with making something so big that don't exist with making something smaller. And while the Excelsior is a fairly long ship, it's not that volume us compared
to the Galaxy class, or even the Ambassador class. Those are two very large classes, as is the Sovereign. Even if you want to expand Excelsior class to one of the larger scales, it's still a fairly small ship compared to the those three. And given the increase in technology and materials in the 40 years between when the Constitution was built in the Excelsior, both of them having about the same build times makes sense.

While the Excelsior is small compared to the Galaxy, that's more a reflection on the Galaxy being really just ridiculously big. The Galaxy saucer alone is bigger in volume than any other Starfleet ship except the Nebula, including the Ambassador and the Sovereign. In fact the Sovereign is about as small as you can get while still counting as "a big ship" by Starfleet standards – she's smaller even than the Ambassador (about ~85% the size).

The Excelsior is still comfortably bigger in volume than the Constellation, the Intrepid, the Prometheus, and the Steamrunner; and only just slightly smaller than the Akira.

The size increase from the Constitution to the Excelsior is larger (~3.7✕) than the size increase from the Excelsior to the Ambassador (~3.0✕) or the Ambassador to the Galaxy (~2.0✕), or even the NX to the original Constitution (~1.1✕). At the time she was built the original Excelsior must have seemed truly monstrous.