That aft void on the Excelsior model seemed like a cargo/ storage access point. I'd even suggest that there could be a roll down door that we haven't seen because it wasn't required. But the only point to that may be that because it would be only really accessible by the decks above, I'd guess that the storage would be for volatile equipment that is meant to be deployed at some point. Or perhaps aft sensor/ communication platforms that just weren't meant to be accessed except for odd maintenance.
Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model
- Thread starter Praetor
- Start date
Thanks, I was looking for this one but unfortunately I misplaced my ST III trading cards.
What I'm trying to say is I was looking for stern shots of the VFX model from the ST III (to determine whether that part had undergone alterations or not).
Looks like this is the only one we have, but am I imagining things or does the structure inside look like the propeller blade of a submarine?
Then that's it, some kind of futuristic "caterpillar drive" as this definitely carries allusions concerning propulsion (and I don't have to feel bad still thinking like a kid
).Bob
No, I think it looks incredibly like a propellor blade in that picture, though it could also just be a weird trick of the light in comparison to Praetor's pics above.
Eh, ain't nothing wrong with stuff looking cool. Mission accomplished on the Excelsior. I'll just be happy with anything at all he can provide, and quite grateful to you likewise. So perhaps we'll continue speculating, given the irregularity of the visits. I'm still pretty jealous that you know him.
A large cargo bay might also work. When I chose to interpret it as a shuttlebay, I had it interconnect up into the cargo bays, which are just under the flat dorsal of the secondary hull. (I also theorized that flat dorsal consisted of hidden doors just forward of the nacelle pylon assembly.) I too theorized there was a hidden "garage" door that was generally never closed.
I'm drifing more and more in the direction of the void originally being some sort of engineering support bay, not unlike what NX-01 had at her saucer's rear, designed for EVA ops related to the transwarp drive as well as containing parts spares and stuff. Maybe after transwarp was removed, it mutated into a more generic cargo bay and auxiliary vehicle holding bay. The blue glow would then of course indicate a forcefield in use, and perhaps something going on inside.
If I was really crazy, I'd try to make that pod in there into a fully independent starship.
What I'm trying to say is I was looking for stern shots of the VFX model from the ST III (to determine whether that part had undergone alterations or not).
Looks like this is the only one we have, but am I imagining things or does the structure inside look like the propeller blade of a submarine?
Then that's it, some kind of futuristic "caterpillar drive" as this definitely carries allusions concerning propulsion (and I don't have to feel bad still thinking like a kid
You're never going to let me live the "kid" thing down are you?
I can see what you mean too... but I'm pretty sure it's a rounded square gondola-style pod hanging from the ceiling, with some superstructure aft of that angling towards the opening itself.
A caterpillar drive is an interesting notion... I just wonder how it would square with instances of the model appearing later and having a glow down there
Great thread, I thoroughly enjoy it 
Looking at this picture, does anyone else have to think of the docking bay of an Imperial Star Destroyer?
But it got me thinking: To me this thing inside the bay looks like a "reception point" of some sort. With that trapezoidal opening in the center, flanked/supported be the two sturdy-looking side elements, it seems possible that a special and yet unseen (supply) ship could dock there and/or if it could be used to establish a connection to a space station/dock for resupply purposes.
Just my two cents.
Mario
Looking at this picture, does anyone else have to think of the docking bay of an Imperial Star Destroyer?
But it got me thinking: To me this thing inside the bay looks like a "reception point" of some sort. With that trapezoidal opening in the center, flanked/supported be the two sturdy-looking side elements, it seems possible that a special and yet unseen (supply) ship could dock there and/or if it could be used to establish a connection to a space station/dock for resupply purposes.
Just my two cents.
Mario
Great thread, I thoroughly enjoy it
Looking at this picture, does anyone else have to think of the docking bay of an Imperial Star Destroyer?
YESSSSSS.
(And, glad you're enjoying the thread.)
Interesting thought... this certainly bears some exploration.
Assuming the 467-meter length of the Excelsior, what are the dimensions of that underhull alcove? Is it really large enough, with enough "floor space", to serve as a shuttlebay? The curvature of the hull doesn't seem to give it a helluva lot of floor...unless they took a page from nuBSG's Pegasus and reverse the gravity plating to make the floor the ceiling.
Also, where is the Excelsior's main shuttlebay? I thought I saw a cutaway some time ago that showed the main shuttlebay to be in the primary hull, forward of the impulse engines but aft of the bridge. But looking at some of the images in this thread, I'm not so sure. I was always of the impression that the shuttlebay in the stern of the secondary hull was just for cargo shuttles only, and not the main shuttlebay.
Also, where is the Excelsior's main shuttlebay? I thought I saw a cutaway some time ago that showed the main shuttlebay to be in the primary hull, forward of the impulse engines but aft of the bridge. But looking at some of the images in this thread, I'm not so sure. I was always of the impression that the shuttlebay in the stern of the secondary hull was just for cargo shuttles only, and not the main shuttlebay.
Great thread, I thoroughly enjoy it
Looking at this picture, does anyone else have to think of the docking bay of an Imperial Star Destroyer?
A friend who got to see the model up close says that's EXACTLY what it looked like and that that's exactly what it is SUPPOSED to look like.
So are we looking at three different chasms?
Bob
- The chasm of the Excelsior from ST III with the submarine propeller blade (kitbashed Ohio Class SSBN?)
- The chasm of the Excelsior from ST VI.Could there be two shuttlecraft inside docked to the upper structure, dropship- or TIE fighter-style?
- The chasm of the Lakota. I'd assume the basic interior framework had been there from the beginning (built by model makers at ILM under the supervision of ILM Veteran Steve Gawley...definitely Star Destroyer hangar bay
)
Bob
Looking at this picture, does anyone else have to think of the docking bay of an Imperial Star Destroyer?
A friend who got to see the model up close says that's EXACTLY what it looked like and that that's exactly what it is SUPPOSED to look like.
You're pushing me back into shuttlebay land.
Now I'm imagining the ole girl dropping shuttlecraft from that bad boy.
At the risk of quoting myself (So are we looking at three different chasms?
- The chasm of the Excelsior from ST III with the submarine propeller blade (kitbashed Ohio Class SSBN?)
- The chasm of the Excelsior from ST VI.Could there be two shuttlecraft inside docked to the upper structure, dropship- or TIE fighter-style?
- The chasm of the Lakota. I'd assume the basic interior framework had been there from the beginning (built by model makers at ILM under the supervision of ILM Veteran Steve Gawley...definitely Star Destroyer hangar bay
) I'm pretty sure the first three images are the same model... although, I'm starting to question whether the first picture is the Jein version, given that it seems to be resting on a tabletop rather comfortably.I really think like Unicron says, the propeller is an illusion. I'm fairly sure the second, at least, which shows the girthly "pod" that I had previously made a shuttlebay rather clearly, was taken from the ship's NX era. So I think from NX to NCC, this area didn't change too much.
I still have a problem with the "floor" being round. If this was a drop bay rather than a shuttlebay, it might make sense, with an actual hangar deck above somehow. But I'm having a hard time trying to rationalize it.
Or the Excelsior was an in-joke all along... she was trying to chase down the Enterprise in TSFS after all...
@Praetor: Glad to be of some assistance, however you might not want to thank me after reading what can of worms I am about to open.
Taking an idea that was brought up in Robert's Enterprise Deck Plans Thread (found here), what if the lower part of the ship with that chasm has gravity oriented different from the rest of the ship? If you were to use this space "upside down" then the curvature simply becomes the arched ceiling and there is a very nice usable landing / staging surface. Making it quite suitable for some kind of cargo/docking bay.
Even though the artificial gravity is basically made up science, if we go by the gravity plate idea from Enterprise, would it be that much of a stretch to assume that a plate that pulls everything above it down to it, could also pull objects below the plate up to itself? If most of that space is simply cargo storage, and not regularly inhabited by crew, then many of the issues that arise from crossing across gravity fields are eliminated.
Bringing this back to the subject, I believe that this opening was not altered until the Enterprise-B/Lakota configuration. According to Memory Alpha, the primary reason for the changes to the model for Star Trek VI were to help reconcile to a different sized bridge set (whether they correctly addressed the problem is another discussion entirely).
I keep looking at this picture. Looking at the back wall within the opening, there seems to be a pattern that resembles those cargo carriers from TMP seen here. If that is what it is, seems that is a very strong indicator that this is meant to be some kind of access to the cargo bay.
Taking an idea that was brought up in Robert's Enterprise Deck Plans Thread (found here), what if the lower part of the ship with that chasm has gravity oriented different from the rest of the ship? If you were to use this space "upside down" then the curvature simply becomes the arched ceiling and there is a very nice usable landing / staging surface. Making it quite suitable for some kind of cargo/docking bay.
Even though the artificial gravity is basically made up science, if we go by the gravity plate idea from Enterprise, would it be that much of a stretch to assume that a plate that pulls everything above it down to it, could also pull objects below the plate up to itself? If most of that space is simply cargo storage, and not regularly inhabited by crew, then many of the issues that arise from crossing across gravity fields are eliminated.
Bringing this back to the subject, I believe that this opening was not altered until the Enterprise-B/Lakota configuration. According to Memory Alpha, the primary reason for the changes to the model for Star Trek VI were to help reconcile to a different sized bridge set (whether they correctly addressed the problem is another discussion entirely).
I keep looking at this picture. Looking at the back wall within the opening, there seems to be a pattern that resembles those cargo carriers from TMP seen here. If that is what it is, seems that is a very strong indicator that this is meant to be some kind of access to the cargo bay.
NX-2000
Okay, let me try to approach the issue from what I assume would be a kitbasher's approach.
Again, here is the Excelsior publicity shot from ST III with the thingy in the chasm which I said reminded me of the propeller of an Ohio Class submarine.
And here is - same viewing angle - the Ohio Class submarine propeller from a model reproduction.
I'm confident that if you were to blow up the ST III shot with the chasm section and make it the same size as the propeller from the model, we'd get a perfect match.
NCC-2000
Similar story here. Blow up the chasm section in the screenshot with the two thingies hanging on top. These remind me a lot (must be the edges with the fins
) of the ST VI shuttlecraft (Jenolan redresses), that could have been reproduced and downscaled in size to match with the Excelsior model (shouldn't come to much as a surprise as this is the same film). Here are some more shots of the shutlecraft.Bob
This is also a great solution - and I'm certainly not averse to the variable gravity notions. I'm starting to feel like I'm going to need to take a poll.
NX-2000
Okay, let me try to approach the issue from what I assume would be a kitbasher's approach.
Again, here is the Excelsior publicity shot from ST III with the thingy in the chasm which I said reminded me of the propeller of an Ohio Class submarine.
And here is - same viewing angle - the Ohio Class submarine propeller from a model reproduction.
I'm confident that if you were to blow up the ST III shot with the chasm section and make it the same size as the propeller from the model, we'd get a perfect match.
NCC-2000
Similar story here. Blow up the chasm section in the screenshot with the two thingies hanging on top. These remind me a lot (must be the edges with the fins
I dunno... I'm still not sold on the propeller, but you latter idea is an intrgiuging one.
Sorry, not seein' it.
@Praetor: Just realized that one of the pictures I used to support my cargo bay argument may have been from the Greg Jein model, not the original studio model. Can anyone confirm if this picture is the original or the Greig Jein model?
I´m not sure if it is a screw from an Ohio class sub, but something that sure looks like a ship propeller is definitely inside that bay of the Excelsior. Anyway, what model kit that propeller came from makes little difference, IMHO.
Mario
If I´m not mistaken, this is (circled in red):
http://s966.photobucket.com/user/hildebrand73/media/02_zps9f822237.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
http://s966.photobucket.com/user/hildebrand73/media/02_zps9f822237.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
@ Workbee
I wasn't referring to the ribs which seem to be a consistent feature throughout the chasm (and make it appear that the modules are just placed there temporarily because they don't seem to have a permanent connection to the ribs at the sides).
According to the low-res stern shot of NX-2000 the propeller would sit in the upper center of the chasm, its upper two fifths are concealed by the external upper "lip" of the chasm's "mouth".
The item vaguely resembles a flower or an octopus but probably is a propeller. All we see are three blades, arms or whatever you'd call these. The one at "6 o'clock" looks thinner than the one at 3 o'clock which is exactly what a submarine propeller would look like, taking into account the bended nature of such blades and the viewing angle.
Bob
@ Mario de Monti
Thanks, it is circled in red.
The blades at 7, 8 and 9 o'clock are probably also there but at this viewing angle they would look extremely thin and therefore do not show up on the low-res picture.
I wasn't referring to the ribs which seem to be a consistent feature throughout the chasm (and make it appear that the modules are just placed there temporarily because they don't seem to have a permanent connection to the ribs at the sides).
According to the low-res stern shot of NX-2000 the propeller would sit in the upper center of the chasm, its upper two fifths are concealed by the external upper "lip" of the chasm's "mouth".
The item vaguely resembles a flower or an octopus but probably is a propeller. All we see are three blades, arms or whatever you'd call these. The one at "6 o'clock" looks thinner than the one at 3 o'clock which is exactly what a submarine propeller would look like, taking into account the bended nature of such blades and the viewing angle.
Bob
@ Mario de Monti
Thanks, it is circled in red.
The blades at 7, 8 and 9 o'clock are probably also there but at this viewing angle they would look extremely thin and therefore do not show up on the low-res picture.
Similar threads
