How big was the Enterprise?

[BK613]

Has anyone built it physically or virtually?

I haven't, but over the years, I have used the window placement as a guide for the port side for my 3D replicas of the studio model. (Yeah, I know there are reversed images as canon but I wanted to add a bi of asymmetry, like is found on RL ships.)

I haven't found examples of this and it seems odd that it is referenced so much without actually being recreated.

I agree.

-------------
Re: The Excelsior class. The class ship was functional enough to send after the stolen Enterprise—it even had it's tractor beam installed, hah!—so I doubt it languished for years before any of the other class ships were built.
A talented engineer sabotaged the ship, other engineers repaired the damage and the ship went through its trials and into service under Styles. Later, three years before the events of TUC, Sulu took over after serving aboard the Ent-A.
I see the Excelsiors maybe following the Arleigh Burke example, where there is an initial 'flight' built over the first years followed by a improved 'flight' with the added bits we see in Generations.
YMMV, of course.

 

[Henoch]

Regarding Matt Jefferies' Enterprise (presumably as seen in The Making of Star Trek and other artbooks). Has anyone built it physically or virtually? I haven't found examples of this and it seems odd that it is referenced so much without actually being recreated.

It has a very different BC deck when viewed from above, a different saucer rim, nacelles hung at a different point making them further apart and a different engineering hull shape.

This is one of reasons that I prefer to use the 11' filming model for most of the external shape/proportions as this was seen on screen for most of its close ups. I like the Gray Kerr drawings.

<edit. correction above: Oops, my memory mistake. The drawings I mis-remembered as Kerr's are actually by Petri Blomquist. The Kerr stuff are a few closeup sketches (which I assume he drew since he has his name on them with a copyright symbol) of the deflector dish and gridlines/hull markings on the top of the saucer.>

 

[blssdwlf]

Yes, and the Excelsior was still a working prototype until sent out on its first deep space mission under Captain Sulu. If ST-III is 2285 and ST-VI is 2293, as you said, that's an 8-year-window. It's possible that once the Excelsior shifted from NX-2000 to NCC-2000 (no longer experimental), it went into production, some 3-4 years prior to the launch of the Enterprise-B. It's reasonable to conclude the Enterprise-B was in the "first batch" of Excelsior-class ships produced after the prototype. We can't assume the class was in mass production all the way back to 2285.

Just because the Excelsior was an NX doesn't mean other Excelsiors have to wait to be built. Look at the NX-74205 Defiant from DS9. She kept her NX registry while other Defiant-class ships were built and put into service.

 

[Redfern]

How big was the Enterprise? The snarky side of me says, "Eh, big enough to be seen on the TV screen."

 

[Warped9]

I recall seeing somewhere someone had worked out the interior habitable volume of the TOS E and it was quite a lot for only 430 crew. Particularly in comparison to how many people crew contemporary naval vessels: a destroyer (about 300), a missile cruiser (about 500), a battleship (about 2600), an aircraft carrier (maybe 5000). WW2 era carriers were easily 2000 plus.

The TOS E was often compared to the size of a mid 20th century era carrier, but its crew compliment was similar to that of a destroyer or cruiser. That speaks to two ideas being telegraphed. No one is going to feel crowded on a Constitution-class starship, and there’s a lot of highly advanced hardware that needs only 400 some people to run it with a safety margin built in. That space also allows for a fair number of passengers (as seen in “Journey To Babel”), but also flexibility for specific missions: transporting marine type troops, scientific expedition groups, colonists and increased crew complement in the event of wartime operations.

 

[DaveyNY]

I recall this cutaway poster from around the late 1980s:

I have that one still rolled up in a sealed tube.
Was going to get it framed when I got it, but because of its very large size, it was prohibitively expensive and I couldn't afford it at that time.
It's packed away now, along with a to of other Trek memorabilia that someone is going to have a field day going through when I finally beam away from this chitshow of a world.
(55 years of collecting has made my place look like a freaking 'Trek Museum' complete with hidden treasures in storage)

 

[blssdwlf]

I'll add another thought to the size of the TOS Enterprise... Matt Jefferies designed it so that all the important machinery was within the hull and could be serviced without going outside. So the Enterprise is more voluminous in order for the machinery to be repairable by crewmen. YMMV.

 

[Henoch]

I had this fantastic TOS USS Enterprise poster hanging on my wall for many years (now it's rolled up in a tube):

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Just because the Excelsior was an NX doesn't mean other Excelsiors have to wait to be built. Look at the NX-74205 Defiant from DS9. She kept her NX registry while other Defiant-class ships were built and put into service.

Ultimately, this is an assumption. We don't know the timeframe of when the Excelsior went from a lone prototype to multiple Excelsior-class ships. Regarding the Defiant on DS9, the NX likely never changed to NCC, so they could continue to use stock shots. It's also possible that different people have different ideas on NX vs. NCC.

 

[blssdwlf]

Ultimately, this is an assumption. We don't know the timeframe of when the Excelsior went from a lone prototype to multiple Excelsior-class ships.

Sure, but we have evidence (DS9 Defiant) that Starfleet can have NCC ships and NX ships of the same class operating at the same time. Do you have evidence that Starfleet waits for an NX ship to be registered as a NCC ship before producing more ships of the same class?

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Sure, but we have evidence (DS9 Defiant) that Starfleet can have NCC ships and NX ships of the same class operating at the same time. Do you have evidence that Starfleet waits for an NX ship to be registered as a NCC ship before producing more ships of the same class?

I feel like this is one of those things that boils down to different production teams with different takes. Back in the TOS-movie era, the Excelsior was the first ship seen as a prototype and with the NX prefix. It later changed to NCC. In later productions, prototypes with an NX prefix don't change to NCC. How do you reconcile this?

 

[blssdwlf]

I feel like this is one of those things that boils down to different production teams with different takes. Back in the TOS-movie era, the Excelsior was the first ship seen as a prototype and with the NX prefix. It later changed to NCC. In later productions, prototypes with an NX prefix don't change to NCC. How do you reconcile this?

It doesn't sound like there is any evidence that Starfleet waits for an NX ship to be registered as a NCC ship before more ships of the same class are produced. In addition to the DS9 Defiant there is also the NX-01 Enterprise being active at the same time with her sister ship the NX-02 Columbia. That would be two examples of additional ships of the same class active while there is an NX ship also active.

It would be reasonable then for more Excelsior class ships to be built and go into service before the NX-2000 Excelsior ever changes her registry to NCC.

Given that Starfleet seems to be okay with NX ships active at the same time as NCC ships of the same class, why do we care if some ships never lose their NX registry?

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

It doesn't sound like there is any evidence that Starfleet waits for an NX ship to be registered as a NCC ship before more ships of the same class are produced. In addition to the DS9 Defiant there is also the NX-01 Enterprise being active at the same time with her sister ship the NX-02 Columbia. That would be two examples of additional ships of the same class active while there is an NX ship also active.

It would be reasonable then for more Excelsior class ships to be built and go into service before the NX-2000 Excelsior every changes her registry to NCC.

Given that Starfleet seems to be okay with NX ships active at the same time as NCC ships of the same class, why do we care if some ships never lose their NX registry?

ST-3 came out in 1984 and introduced the Excelsior NX-2000.
ST-6 came out in 1991 and saw the Excelsior NX-2000 changed to NCC-2000.
We did not see another NX-prototype ship until the Defiant on DS9 in the fall of 1994, I believe.
Ever since the Defiant, all NX-prototypes have seemed to "remain" NX and not change to NCC.
So, I feel like Excelsior was different, because the people making the show hadn't thought all of this out yet.
Regarding the NX-class, I think B&B's idea was that the NX-class ships would all be NX, so NX-01, NX-02, NX-03, and so on.

Circling back to Excelsior, NX or NCC, regardless, there's only 8 years between the Excelsior and Enterprise-B. It's entirely possible that the Excelsior was the only one for say it's first 3 years before production as a class began. It also takes a lot of time to build a starship. I'm not saying Ent-B was Excelsior #2, but I do think it was likely among the "first batch" produced after the prototype.

 

[Tomalak]

Regarding the Excelsior-class, my understanding is that bridge graphics from Generations indicate that at least two other Excelsior-class ships (using the Enterprise-B/Lakota silhouette) existed at that time.

USS Challenger NCC-2032 and an unnamed NCC-2004.

USS Challenger (NCC-2032)

The USS Challenger (NCC-2032) was a 23rd century Excelsior-class Federation starship operated by Starfleet. In 2278, the Challenger appeared on a Starship Mission Assignments chart on the bridge of the USS Bozeman after exiting a temporal causality loop 2368. (TNG: "Cause And Effect") In 2293...

memory-alpha.fandom.com

My theory is that the Enterprise-B type is actually the short-lived original production version following the prototype. Then the original Excelsior was rebuilt into the TUC version with a new drive system which which somehow negates the need for the additional impulse exhaust units, and this becomes the standard Excelsior for the next century.

The Lakota can simply be a reactivated mothballed ship, which could be implied in Paradise Lost anyway.

 

[YouAreDooomed]

Depends who you ask. The most common size is stated to be 289m, but that's never been fully cemented in canon. The closest we ever got to establishing the size was this diagram displayed on a screen, but the scale was entirely illegible on televisions at the time.

Not quite correct, DSC ironically canonised the length of 289 m by giving legible dimensions of the nacelles.

ep. "Brother"

The nacelles of the larger SNW version are more like 230 m long.
SNW clearly established 442 m which also matches Disco's CGI model.

Watch: Sonequa Martin-Green Discusses ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Season Two – See A Tease Of The Enterprise

CBS continues to tease the second season in a new video.

trekmovie.com

In "Such Sweet Sorrow Part 1" you can see people walk through those retractable corridors that must be more than three metres in height and heavily support the larger version.

The relatively low overall density is noteworthy as well. The smaller Intrepid class is almost 3.7 times as massive (700,000 vs.190,000 tons).

 

[BK613]

@Tomalak Yeah, I tend to give little credence to those illegible background charts, especially ones that appear to be reused again and again. That very same Challenger appears in a chart on the Bozeman, which traveled to the 24th century from 2278—which is seven years before the Excelsior is introduced.

@Admiral Jean-Luc Picard For the sake of completeness:
ST-4 came out in 1986 and showed the Excelsior still NX-2000 when the Ent-A in introduced.

(As an aside, the whole build-a-prototype-ship-first-before-building-more runs counter to how real Navy ships are built. Typically, the second ship (or more) in the class is laid down before the first is even commissioned. This has been true even with problem plagued classes like the GR Ford and aborted direction classes like the Seawolf and the Zumwalt.
And across the Pond, the Prince of Wales was laid down before the Queen Elizabeth was commissioned.)

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Now I have a question. If the Enterprise is launched in 2245 and Discovery is a "newer ship" in the mid-2250's, how is the ship's registry NCC-1031 while the older Enterprise is NCC-1701? Anyone got any ideas? I always took the registry numbers to be production numbers. Excelsior NCC-2000 would be Starfleet's 2,000th starship for example.

Additionally, it's hard to gauge Discovery's size, because it's so flat, wide, long. Regarding internal volume, which is the bigger ship, Discovery or Enterprise?

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

(As an aside, the whole build-a-prototype-ship-first-before-building-more runs counter to how real Navy ships are built. Typically, the second ship (or more) in the class is laid down before the first is even commissioned. This has been true even with problem plagued classes like the GR Ford and aborted direction classes like the Seawolf and the Zumwalt.
And across the Pond, the Prince of Wales was laid down before the Queen Elizabeth was commissioned.)

Understood, but can we expect the fictional and futuristic Starfleet of the UFP to operate in the same way as 20th century Navies?

 

[Tomalak]

@Tomalak Yeah, I tend to give little credence to those illegible background charts, especially ones that appear to be reused again and again. That very same Challenger appears in a chart on the Bozeman, which traveled to the 24th century from 2278—which is seven years before the Excelsior is introduced.

This is fair, although arguably it's the Bozeman which is the bigger continuity issue, given that it has the Final Frontier/Undiscovered Country style graphics, yet apparently the class was retired soon after.

The bridge in general is of a later design with more in common with the Ambassador (unsurprisingly it was a redress of the generic TNG bridge set), so all things considered it would have been better if Bateson had said 2287 instead of 2278! Maybe he was disoriented and misspoke.

NCC-2004 is unique to the Ent-B graphic, and seems pretty logical for another Excelsior-class ship.

 

[Tomalak]

On the subject of graphics, TUC gives us the USS Constellation NX-1974, which was 8 years after the Hathaway was launched in 2285. Another example of a ship retaining "experimental" status long after others of the class are in active service.