Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model
- Thread starter Praetor
- Start date
The porthole size seems pretty small. At most a meter or so in width. Would portholes substantially smaller than that (as would the case be in a sub-1700m Excelsior) really make practical sense? Heck, would they even glow like that based on the fact that they'd probably be tiny pinholes in the hull?
All portholes aside, my friends I require your advice. I have been revisiting the deck alignments vis a vis the available screencaps and drawings that I have been presenting, and have derived three distinct possibilities that may be equally valid. I have at this point concluded the 622 meter size to be correct, so all of these versions are scaled thusly. I have also made adjustments to the height of the saucer section that better bring it in line with the available reference resources.
I have left these drawings large enough that you should be fairly well able to inspect their differences closely. Please note that the saucer deck alignments do not vary from version to version, as I consider their arrangement to be locked. Please also note that I have chosen to letter the decks in the saucer (and append a 0 to the numerical references to those decks) to distinguish them from the straight numbered hulls of the secondary hull. I believe this to be a great compromise to several issues seen in TOS and the films. Apparently by TNG this practice has ended.
First, Option One.
This one is based largely on my study of screencaps of the original Excelsior in "The Search for Spock," "The Voyage Home," and "The Undiscovered Country." Here, I found the secondary hull to contain either 16 or 17 decks. Using the previously established saucer deck height of 9.5 feet, I was able to add decks to the secondary hull that yielded 17 decks (plus a little wiggle room) and seemed to match the window rows on the secondary hull fairly well. The top deck is somewhat below the "flattop" of the secondary hull, since it has been noted that this area cambers outward on top. (Having a deck too close to the top would result in a weird slanted deck with decreasing height towards the outside... a problem possibly unavoidable on any 467 meter version.) This also allows for the 12 ft ceiling of engineering to exist here, as it can stretch upward into the space between the topmost deck and the bottom deck of the interhull.
Here we end up with 32 decks, with enough space for possible one more at the very bottom of the secondary hull, although the chasm arrangement really prevents it. I found in doing this one that the shorter decks in the neck and humpback better fit the location of the warp pylons and the insets on the grilled neck. The decks fit snugly but not too tightly in all areas, and there is extra space above and below the topmost three decks of the secondary hull where they meet horizontal surface areas.
With this option for all standard Excelsior class ships, we must conclude that the internal structure of the decks of the secondary hull of the Enterprise-B variant is simply different.
Option Two.
This one is very similar to the previous version that I had based on the Enterprise-B/Lakota model study drawings that I concluded to also be accurate to the original Excelsior alignments before learning different. This version retains 12 foot secondary hull decks (14.5 of them, having a sub deck under the flattop deck.) The main difference here from before is that I have carried over the 9.5 foot decks in the neck and humpback. (This is a deviation from the previous version, which retained 12 foot decks here to match the secondary hull. As noted above, I believe the shorter decks to be a better fit.)
Here we end up with 29 total decks, but have to choose to ignore the fact that the windows aren't exactly the same as they were before the ship was converted for duty in "Generations." However, we may wish to ignore that and choose to believe that the Excelsior and Enterprise-B actually had the same deck structure. (Here, the "pontoons" on the B would have shorter decks, accessed by ramp, independent of the deck heights of the main secondary hull body.
Finally, Option Three:
This version is quite similar to the previous version, in that it assumes that the Enterprise-B deck alignments are actually correct, but that the pontoon decks actually extend the entire way through the secondary hull. So we end up with 9.5 foot decks in the saucer and neck, six 12 foot decks at the top of the secondary hull, and 8 more 9.5 foot decks in the "bilge" of the chasm.
It's worth noting that for all of these, most of the lower decks that don't extend all the way to the aft of the secondary hull are in the "bilge" and would actually be in the pod, so the bottom half of the secondary hull really is basically hollow. And a minor but related note - I've decided that the smaller landing bay is used exclusively for the STV type shuttlecraft and possibly travel pods, whereas the lower chasm landing bay houses one of the large executive shuttles from STVI, meant to dock at what I'd previously called the "grabbers." This area also houses workbees and can act as a sort of mobile drydock for smaller vessels, as per suggestions earlier in the thread.
So what do you think? Which deck alignment do you feel is more correct? (And thanks in advance for the input.)
I kind of feel like I'm about to enter the home stretch on this part of the project, and am excited about other things starting to fall into place behind it.
I have left these drawings large enough that you should be fairly well able to inspect their differences closely. Please note that the saucer deck alignments do not vary from version to version, as I consider their arrangement to be locked. Please also note that I have chosen to letter the decks in the saucer (and append a 0 to the numerical references to those decks) to distinguish them from the straight numbered hulls of the secondary hull. I believe this to be a great compromise to several issues seen in TOS and the films. Apparently by TNG this practice has ended.
First, Option One.
This one is based largely on my study of screencaps of the original Excelsior in "The Search for Spock," "The Voyage Home," and "The Undiscovered Country." Here, I found the secondary hull to contain either 16 or 17 decks. Using the previously established saucer deck height of 9.5 feet, I was able to add decks to the secondary hull that yielded 17 decks (plus a little wiggle room) and seemed to match the window rows on the secondary hull fairly well. The top deck is somewhat below the "flattop" of the secondary hull, since it has been noted that this area cambers outward on top. (Having a deck too close to the top would result in a weird slanted deck with decreasing height towards the outside... a problem possibly unavoidable on any 467 meter version.) This also allows for the 12 ft ceiling of engineering to exist here, as it can stretch upward into the space between the topmost deck and the bottom deck of the interhull.
Here we end up with 32 decks, with enough space for possible one more at the very bottom of the secondary hull, although the chasm arrangement really prevents it. I found in doing this one that the shorter decks in the neck and humpback better fit the location of the warp pylons and the insets on the grilled neck. The decks fit snugly but not too tightly in all areas, and there is extra space above and below the topmost three decks of the secondary hull where they meet horizontal surface areas.
With this option for all standard Excelsior class ships, we must conclude that the internal structure of the decks of the secondary hull of the Enterprise-B variant is simply different.
Option Two.
This one is very similar to the previous version that I had based on the Enterprise-B/Lakota model study drawings that I concluded to also be accurate to the original Excelsior alignments before learning different. This version retains 12 foot secondary hull decks (14.5 of them, having a sub deck under the flattop deck.) The main difference here from before is that I have carried over the 9.5 foot decks in the neck and humpback. (This is a deviation from the previous version, which retained 12 foot decks here to match the secondary hull. As noted above, I believe the shorter decks to be a better fit.)
Here we end up with 29 total decks, but have to choose to ignore the fact that the windows aren't exactly the same as they were before the ship was converted for duty in "Generations." However, we may wish to ignore that and choose to believe that the Excelsior and Enterprise-B actually had the same deck structure. (Here, the "pontoons" on the B would have shorter decks, accessed by ramp, independent of the deck heights of the main secondary hull body.
Finally, Option Three:
This version is quite similar to the previous version, in that it assumes that the Enterprise-B deck alignments are actually correct, but that the pontoon decks actually extend the entire way through the secondary hull. So we end up with 9.5 foot decks in the saucer and neck, six 12 foot decks at the top of the secondary hull, and 8 more 9.5 foot decks in the "bilge" of the chasm.
It's worth noting that for all of these, most of the lower decks that don't extend all the way to the aft of the secondary hull are in the "bilge" and would actually be in the pod, so the bottom half of the secondary hull really is basically hollow. And a minor but related note - I've decided that the smaller landing bay is used exclusively for the STV type shuttlecraft and possibly travel pods, whereas the lower chasm landing bay houses one of the large executive shuttles from STVI, meant to dock at what I'd previously called the "grabbers." This area also houses workbees and can act as a sort of mobile drydock for smaller vessels, as per suggestions earlier in the thread.
So what do you think? Which deck alignment do you feel is more correct? (And thanks in advance for the input.)
I kind of feel like I'm about to enter the home stretch on this part of the project, and am excited about other things starting to fall into place behind it.
Love it but how big are Connie and refit then??
I'm swayed by the multiple deck size arrangements of Option 3, but then again I've never been a subscriber to the theory that all decks have to be equal! It do like the way it covers both versions of the Excelsior class without having to resort to ramps etc. What about the differences in window layouts between the original and the Enteprise-B though?
no. 3 says Kirk dies... HE DOESN'T DIE! HE'S IN THE NEXUS.
he can never die *sniffle*
Forever doing funny commercials and any project that comes across his door. I'm hiring him to come to Ontario and hold the balloons on our front lawn, indicating that our house is where the party is at!
No. three is for me... That's all I should have said and left it at that.
he can never die *sniffle*
Forever doing funny commercials and any project that comes across his door. I'm hiring him to come to Ontario and hold the balloons on our front lawn, indicating that our house is where the party is at!
No. three is for me... That's all I should have said and left it at that.
Somewhere between 305 and 355 meters, inclusive.
Well, that's the problem. If we're going to be Thermian about it, the "regular" Excelsiors and "variants" like the Enterprise-B and Lakota have difference secondary hull deck alignments, and that's all there is to it.
I think I need to do a bit more window comparison between the two, as well as assess how those shorter lower decks would fit in the "pontoons." I think that those bilge decks should actually be more like 8.5 or 9 feet, according to the screencaps of the gaping hole that I studied earlier.
no. 3 says Kirk dies... HE DOESN'T DIE! HE'S IN THE NEXUS.
he can never die *sniffle*
Forever doing funny commercials and any project that comes across his door. I'm hiring him to come to Ontario and hold the balloons on our front lawn, indicating that our house is where the party is at!
No. three is for me... That's all I should have said and left it at that.
Just so you know, I haven't abandoned The Great Experiment. It's busy time at work, and I don't have a lot of mental bandwidth for anything else at the moment. My next steps are still to evaluate the "pontoons" on the B more vis a vis the above three options.
Life should get better in a couple weeks...
Life should get better in a couple weeks...
Amazing Thread.. The Excelsior class has grown on me over the years and it has become a favourite
I have enjoyed the work and suggestions from all, I do favour the larger Excelsior as mentioned throughout the thread and that the established official scale as always looked wrong to me.
Praetor I like Option 1 in your post.
I have enjoyed the work and suggestions from all, I do favour the larger Excelsior as mentioned throughout the thread and that the established official scale as always looked wrong to me.
Praetor I like Option 1 in your post.
Last edited:
Hey Praetor, did you ever release your deck plans for the Excelsior Class?
Here we see the deck heights of a 1532ft/467m Excelsior compared to Leonard Nimoy's 6ft Spock. That's zero headroom, even with very thin decks.
From a thread about a year or so ago, I used the Enterprise-B MSD to determine the Excelsior's "true" size. I found that to have 8ft deck heights the Excelsior would need to be at least 622m/2060.6ft long. To fit the bridge module, larger even than that.
If the Enterprise B were actually 622m, how large are the C, D, E, A, and original? Do they scale up in the same ratio of 1.3319?
I take it on a case-by-case basis. This thread goes into a lot of detail (with, unfortunately, quite a bit of arguing) about Trek ship sizes.
No, they probably wouldn't, since the exterior features are different.
Still, it always seems that the official sizes of every class of ship in the Enterprise lineage before the alternate reality NCC-1701 understate the size to some degree relative to what we are shown of the interiors.
-The shuttlebay of the original Enterprise wouldn't fit in a 285-m starship. The refit Enterprise and Enterprise-A has to be even larger due to saucer thickness and the increased bulkiness of the engineering hull.
-The Excelsior (and by extension, the Enterprise-B) dwarfs the Enterprise-A in TVH and TUC. In "Encounter at Farpoint", the Hood appears to be about as long as the Enterprise-D (though one could argue that perspective is slightly inflating the Hood's apparent size).
-The Enterprise-D's Ten Forward is located at the front of the saucer, but occupying only the lower rim of windows... which is contrary to Probert's initial design concept the rim being one deck thick... not to mention that there are two very different filming models that depict this ship.
-The Enterprise-C is kind of a stumpier version of the Enterprise-D, but it is still pretty big in "Yesterday's Enterprise".
-In FC, despite Picard telling Lily that the Enterprise-E has 24 decks, another scene shows a security officer saying the Borg control decks 26 through 11. The Enterprise-E is shown to be about ten times the length of the Defiant. In Nemesis, Riker fights the Reman viceroy on deck 29, and the viceroy is somehow knocked down what looks like a "bottomless pit". On the other hand, when the Borg are controlling decks 11 through 26, Worf says that they control more than half the ship... What. The. Heck.
-In DS9, I think that most of the CGI starships are scaled to their official lengths, but most of them are flying in random coordinates in space, so it's tough to get a sense of how large they are relative to each other. Of course, there are still weird inconsistencies, like when that Jem'hadar battlecruiser flies over what looks like a Jem'hadar battleship in "What You Leave Behind".
Actually, the top is flat, with the back sloping down & away.Okay, until I took a good look at this screencap, I had never realized that the top of the travel pod sloped down like that!In the above docking port scene it appears to have a magnifying effect, but just a few scenes earlier it seemed to have a minimizing effect (gee, that's a giant of a travel pod).
I suppose it didn't help that the graphic used in the encyclopedia and other places shows it flat.
Andrew-
If you click on their username or avatar in one of their posts above, it looks like their last visit here was Nov 14, 2015.
Similar threads
