Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

[Egger]

TNG TM says that under most operating circumstances the M:AM ratio in a GCS is 25:1 and that it gets up to 1:1 as it approaches higher warp factors.

Sounds logical. I haven't read any trek literature, I only know the films and series, so I only remembered what Wesley said in one TNG episode about the ratio being always 1:1. Of course I ignore what he said.

What if the thing that makes post-Excelsior designs special is that they're able to go with a pure 1:1 M/AM ratio rather than having to have reactant deuterium to be used in a way that can be energized. That is to say, things like the swirlie chambers probably are some sort of anti-matter spiked fusion plant rather than a pure m:am 1:1 reaction. Hence you'd need the stuff to be reacting at the whole thing of the chamber, rather than in a single reaction chamber.

The warp plasma that's "de-energized" in the warp coils and energizers would still need to be replaced. And since it is already needed in the warp core (to absorb the energy from the reaction) it would always be needed to replace it right there. Otherwise the annihilation energy could go nowhere and would just make the warp core explode (or maybe melt).

Also, a XCV-330 with a 5km diameter engine would at least be the overall size of Earth Spacedock. Basically we're talking about a Babylon station sized thing.

This seems to be a bit huge if you ask me, but if it can be rationalized ...

 

[Egger]

Oh and by the way, regarding your idea of the swirl chambers, this would also fit the reactors before TMP well I think. Look at the reactor of the NX class, it has the swirling effect too, and maybe TOS warp cores could be similar. The TMP version would then be a kind of evolution of this, a reactor array.

EDIT: The intermix chamber being an "anti-matter spiked fusion plant" could also be supported by the connection between intermix chamber and the impulse engines.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Also, a XCV-330 with a 5km diameter engine would at least be the overall size of Earth Spacedock. Basically we're talking about a Babylon station sized thing.

This seems to be a bit huge if you ask me, but if it can be rationalized ...

May I recommend this BBS thread which essentially revolves around the XCV-330 Enterprise?

While I personally prefer a larger size for this ship (explaining its absence on the conference lounge sculpture wall of the E-D), the windows of the "enviropod" suggest a smaler scale.

For what Roddenberry wanted his "Starship" TV series to be, I'd dare to say that the ship would have been much bigger. Then, it ended up on the TMP Enterprise's rec deck display telling us little or nothing about it's actual in-universe size.

Bob

 

[Praetor]

The ship would eventually run out of deuterium (and this happened in Voyager at least one time), because not all of it can be reused.

Maybe some of it actually does burn off, rather than being unusable. Or maybe it is unusable, and it's just blown out.

I agree on the 602 metres, but it's interesting that with option 3 we would roughly be at the "canon" length.

Thank you for noticing that, as I forgot to point it out; it is rather interesting isn't it? I think 8 feet is a bit too short for her deck heights, though.

TNG TM says that under most operating circumstances the M:AM ratio in a GCS is 25:1 and that it gets up to 1:1 as it approaches higher warp factors.

What if the thing that makes post-Excelsior designs special is that they're able to go with a pure 1:1 M/AM ratio rather than having to have reactant deuterium to be used in a way that can be energized. That is to say, things like the swirlie chambers probably are some sort of anti-matter spiked fusion plant rather than a pure m:am 1:1 reaction. Hence you'd need the stuff to be reacting at the whole thing of the chamber, rather than in a single reaction chamber.

That's freakin' brilliant... and the supercharger on Excelsior would fit in nicely as a sort of prototypical compromise on the way to inventing the "supercollider" style core.

Oh and by the way, regarding your idea of the swirl chambers, this would also fit the reactors before TMP well I think. Look at the reactor of the NX class, it has the swirling effect too, and maybe TOS warp cores could be similar. The TMP version would then be a kind of evolution of this, a reactor array.

EDIT: The intermix chamber being an "anti-matter spiked fusion plant" could also be supported by the connection between intermix chamber and the impulse engines.

Great points!

I have worked out a bit more math regarding the other starship classes, using the pixel/feet method.

(1) Constitution TOS
(For only this one, I used a differently scaled exported file which is why the pixel dimensions are a bit different, so there's a tiny margin of error compared to the others.)

Option A, Saucer Decks: @ 10 ft, Engineering Decks @ 12 ft

10 ft/13 px = .77

1717 * .77 = 1322.09 feet = 402.97 meters

Option B, Saucer Decks @ 8 ft, Engineering Decks @ 10 ft

8ft/13 px = .615ft/px

1717 *.615 = 1055.955 ft = 321.86 meters

Option C, All Decks Uniform Height @ 10 ft
(For this option, saucer deck heights would be increased to match the scale on the engineering hull.)

All Decks @ 10ft

10 ft/16 px = .625

1717 px * .625 = 1073.125 ft = 327.1 meters

(2) Constitution refit

Option A, Saucer Decks: @ 10 ft, Engineering Decks @ 12 ft

10 ft /27 px = .37 ft/px

3619 px * .37 = 1339.03 ft = 408 meters

Option B, Saucer Decks @ 8 ft, Engineering Decks @ 10 ft

8ft/27 px = .296 ft/px

3619 px *.296 = 1072.3 ft = 326.84 meters

Option C, All Decks Uniform Height @ 10 ft
(For this option, saucer deck heights would be increased to match the scale on the engineering hull.)

All Decks @ 10ft

10 ft/32 px = .3125

3619 px * .3125= 1130.94 ft = 344.7 meters

(3) Miranda

Option A, All Decks @ 10 ft

10 ft/28 px = .357 ft/px

2813 * .357 = 1004.241 ft = 306.1 meters

Option B, All Decks @ 8 ft

8 ft/28 px = .2857 ft/px

2813 * .2857 = 803.7 ft = 244.97 meters

(4) Constellation

Option A, All Decks @ 10 ft

10 ft/13 px = .77 ft/px

1568 px * .77 = 1207.36 ft = 368 meters

Option B, All Decks @ 8 ft

8 ft/13 px = .615 ft/px

1568 px * .615 = 964.92 ft = 294.1 meters

(5) Oberth

Option A, All Decks @ 8 ft

8 ft/16 px = .5 ft/px

1263 px * .5 = 631.5 ft = 192.48 meters

Option B, All Decks @ 10 ft

10 ft/16 px = .625 ft/px

1263 px * .625 = 789.375 ft = 240.6 metersGenerally, I prefer option A for each, including the 8 ft decks on the Oberth. Here's the pretty picture to go with it. (Careful, it's huge.)



In this scale analysis, I've included the scaled dorsal views of the Galaxy and Excelsior to solidify my opinon that even at 602 meters long, Excelsior is still comfortably smaller than the Galaxy, and leaves Galaxy her top dog status quite nicely.

 

[Lord Garth FOI]

Isn't it established that at least from the sets we saw in TOS that all decks and hallways were shown at about 10 ft in the saucer section and then taller in engineering?
Very cool
Personally I'd like to go with option A for Connie and refit I like them at a bigger scale

 

[Robert Comsol]

@ Lord Garth

All the TOS corridor and room wall panels had a maximal height or beam of 10 feet. And while we do have a couple of shots in TOS that exposed the full height, the overscan of any 4:3 TV tube set would have cut off some of the overhead areas.

An interesting piece is the briefing room set. The top of the ceiling support beams ended at a height of 2.8 meters. I interpreted this as a hint that 2.8 meters was intended to be the average deck height in the saucer hull.

Bob

 

[Lord Garth FOI]

Thanks brother

 

[Egger]

Regarding the ships scales:

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?).

So, I really would like them to be bigger, but I think they still work better at the lower scale (327 and 344 metres, option C). Also, the small size difference between Constitution and NX could be explained away. It could be that Starfleet wanted mainly faster ships but didn't have the technology to make the ships bigger in addition to that (limitations of the warp drive maybe). This could explain the huge nacelles on the Constitution class. It's built to be the fastest, not the biggest.

And for the Oberth, I would also rather take the 10 ft decks. There has to be some space (for structural members, conduits ...) between the decks.

 

[Praetor]

@ Lord Garth

All the TOS corridor and room wall panels had a maximal height or beam of 10 feet. And while we do have a couple of shots in TOS that exposed the full height, the overscan of any 4:3 TV tube set would have cut off some of the overhead areas.

An interesting piece is the briefing room set. The top of the ceiling support beams ended at a height of 2.8 meters. I interpreted this as a hint that 2.8 meters was intended to be the average deck height in the saucer hull.

Bob

Great points, Bob. Rewatching TOS, I've been beginning to wonder whether the ceiling structure we see in the briefing room and corridors isn't the same thing that would be covered up by ceiling panels in later eras. Perhaps an overall deck height of nine feet, including the in-between crap, is plausible.

Regarding the ships scales:

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?).

So, I really would like them to be bigger, but I think they still work better at the lower scale (327 and 344 metres, option C). Also, the small size difference between Constitution and NX could be explained away. It could be that Starfleet wanted mainly faster ships but didn't have the technology to make the ships bigger in addition to that (limitations of the warp drive maybe). This could explain the huge nacelles on the Constitution class. It's built to be the fastest, not the biggest.

And for the Oberth, I would also rather take the 10 ft decks. There has to be some space (for structural members, conduits ...) between the decks.

Generally agreed.

Does anyone know how tall the floor-to-ceiling heights of the TMP/TNG sets were? Scaling them visually against Riker, they look to be around 8 feet tall, which could allow another foot or two between ceilings. (I've scoured the internet a bit but not found very good references with sized scaling.)

Additionally, what is the actual source of the notion that the Enterprise refit is 10 feet in the saucer and 12 feet in the engineering hull? Moreover, why do we think that they're different, when engineering was built adjacent the curved corridor? Is it something to do with the cargo room scene?

Pursuing the nine foot deck height angle a bit...

Excelsior:
9 ft/25 px = .36 ft/px
4934 px * .36 = 1776.24 ft = 541.398 meters

TOS Enterprise: (Saucer Decks at 9 feet, Engineering Decks at 11 feet)
9 ft/13 px = .69
1717 * .69 = 1184.73 feet = 361.106 meters

Refit Enterprise: (Saucer Decks at 9 feet, Engineering Decks at 11 feet)
9 ft /27 px = .33 ft/px
3619 px * .33 = 1206.33 ft = 367.69 meters

Miranda:
9 ft/27 px = .33 ft/px
2813 * .33 = 937.67 ft = 285.8 meters

Constellation:
9 ft/13 px = .69 ft/px
1568 px * .69 = 1085.54 ft = 330.87 meters

Oberth:
9 ft/16 px = .5625 ft/px
1263 px * .5625 = 710.44 ft = 216.54 meters

I actually kind of like these sizes... in my head it feels like a pretty good scale. Thoughts?

 

[Egger]

Since we can see in TOS that the visible deck height is around 10 ft, the full deck height must be a bit more than that. If the 289 metres TOS Enterprise could have 10 ft (without "a bit more") decks, the upscaled version (327 metres) can have "10 ft plus a bit more" (11.31 ft) deck heights.
So if a 289 metres Constitution class could have 10 ft decks then, my choice would be the 327 metres version because it supports the visible deck height, has enough space between the decks and nothing looks too oversized (windows, bridge dome, shuttle bay ...). That's my reasoning.

 

[Praetor]

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?

 

[Robert Comsol]

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.

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

 

[Egger]

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?

 

[Praetor]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Workbee]

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...

 

[Egger]

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. ^^

 

[Praetor]

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.

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.

 

[Egger]

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).

 

[Workbee]

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.

 

[Praetor]

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...

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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?