Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

[137th Gebirg]

Speaking of Option 1, why is it that the shaft has to be straight? According to Option 1, the antimatter pods would be just right above the navigational deflector, correct?

That would follow, yes. Does anyone have a good close-up view of the deflector area of the original miniature? It's possible they might have thought of this and inscribed an area in the top of the deflector housing to infer a core/antimatter emergency ejection hatch, like what is shown in the Jackill's version.

 

[drt]

[
Fascinating... it'd be interesting to see that. I seem to remember reading that Mike Okuda told Shane Johnson that he could modify his TVH graphics to include the word transwarp because at the time there was no reason to think transwarp wasn't successful... but at some point during TNG pre-production it was decided to drop the term. I presume it was because it was deemed confusing and not directly linear from TOS. Also, Roddenberry may have disliked that it came from movies he didn't wholly approve of.

I never really bought the story that Johnson modified the original 1701-A graphics, that entire section of the book seemed like a last minute addition that I'd bet on which not too much time was spent. Plus, the 1701-A's "warp out" at the end of TVH was noticibly different from previous instances and seemed to be implying that the new Enterprise was faster somehow. I think the original idea was that she had trans-warp drive, but as you mentioned, the entire concept was dropped once TNG began production, probably because as you surmised Roddenberry wasn't a fan.

 

[Workbee]

And in my private continuity, transwarp WAS a success, and became integrated as the new standard in the TNG era.

Not necessarily that "private". I just went over my TNG materials and back in the late 1980's there was a fanzine that somehow had gotten access to genuine Art Department materials, including sketches of Andrew Probert etc.

Sometimes these looked like a copy of a copy of a copy but there are apparently genuine screen schematics from the bridge (e.g. Picard's command chair schematics) and one of those shows the Enterprise-D on a schematic that reads "transwarp". It's very reminiscent of the transwarp schematics from Shane Johnson's Scott's Guide to the (TMP) Enterprise from ST IV.

Bob

I will state however, that I dislike how the TNG aesthetic began, through production necessity, to affect the TOS Film aesthetic in TFF, TUC and some extent, Generations. I realize that the many of the same sets were used for both productions, and it wasn't economically feasible to fully revert them to the movie versions. But when I see engineering in TUC, I tell myself that that is just the best possible stand in for the TMP engine room. So while I am OK with letting it be used for Excelsior, I am probably just as fine with a TMP style core. Due to the different production teams and agenda, my mantra would be for the movie era is generally to pretend that TNG never happened. Trek really was heading in two different directions around that time, with two distinctly differing visions.

 

[Praetor]

That would follow, yes. Does anyone have a good close-up view of the deflector area of the original miniature? It's possible they might have thought of this and inscribed an area in the top of the deflector housing to infer a core/antimatter emergency ejection hatch, like what is shown in the Jackill's version.

I think the only great pictures of that area that exist are from its life as the Lakota - and we can be fairly certain that the area was repainted when the add-ons were added, as the deflector dish itself was also replaced.

I never really bought the story that Johnson modified the original 1701-A graphics, that entire section of the book seemed like a last minute addition that I'd bet on which not too much time was spent. Plus, the 1701-A's "warp out" at the end of TVH was noticibly different from previous instances and seemed to be implying that the new Enterprise was faster somehow. I think the original idea was that she had trans-warp drive, but as you mentioned, the entire concept was dropped once TNG began production, probably because as you surmised Roddenberry wasn't a fan.

I think the warp out is less an intentional change as a coincidence... but I'll concede that it's entirely possible that you're right. What I meant about the graphics, and what I've taken from the story, is that Shane asked Mr. Okuda whether or not it would have transwarp and Mr. Okuda basically replied "Hrm, probably. Why not?" To which Shane then asked if he could modify the graphics, and was allowed to do so. But it's also entirely possible he didn't, sure.

I will state however, that I dislike how the TNG aesthetic began, through production necessity, to affect the TOS Film aesthetic in TFF, TUC and some extent, Generations. I realize that the many of the same sets were used for both productions, and it wasn't economically feasible to fully revert them to the movie versions. But when I see engineering in TUC, I tell myself that that is just the best possible stand in for the TMP engine room. So while I am OK with letting it be used for Excelsior, I am probably just as fine with a TMP style core. Due to the different production teams and agenda, my mantra would be for the movie era is generally to pretend that TNG never happened. Trek really was heading in two different directions around that time, with two distinctly differing visions.

Yeah - this quite well synopsizes why I'm rather torn myself. The only reason why, in the past, I've went with the TNG core relatively as seen, is that it makes for an interesting narrative and helps to explain why the ships last into TNG.

OTOH, we might conclude that the Excelsior (and Miranda, for that matter) just made use of TMP-style swirl cores, if it was later good enough for Voyager, and like you said, it was a good enough stand-in for real-world filming reasons. The Galaxy class might've invented the TNG style core in this scenario. Here, I'd imagine that the core on the Excelsior was of the swirl type, just fancier and maybe overall larger. Certainly does help account for the length of the ship, doesn't it?

Taken with the question of the antimatter pods, the Sternbach Option suddenly looks better.

Does anyone else have any feelings about this?

 

[Robert Comsol]

Fascinating... it'd be interesting to see that. I seem to remember reading that Mike Okuda told Shane Johnson that he could modify his TVH graphics to include the word transwarp because at the time there was no reason to think transwarp wasn't successful...

Unfortunately, I compared these particular TNG graphics with the Johnson ones. They are the same (judging by all the technobabble numbers), only that some guy put an Enterprise-D schematic over the Johnson Enterprise-A schematic. I just hate this kind of fraud!
But anyway, if the okudagrams on the bridge of NCC-1701-A at the end of ST IV did not say "transwarp" than there is no reason to assume it did have transwarp.

Bob

 

[Praetor]

But anyway, if the okudagrams on the bridge of NCC-1701-A at the end of ST IV did not say "transwarp" than there is no reason to assume it did have transwarp.

Agreed, and it so happens the TNG TM agrees with us. I think transwarp was, quite simply, a thing that we never saw the Federation fully achieve and implement. I think having the Great Experiment be a failure, but netting a variety of successful innovations, is a happy compromise... as well as narratively interesting.

So, I'm starting to see more clearly a narrow set of warp core options. Forgive me for not providing graphics this go round, but perhaps I will later this evening.

The Two "Classic" Options:

Option 1.0:
Vertical swirl core(s) through neck, horizontal swirl core back to humpback, no reactor other than swirl core, antimatter stores at bottom of horizontal shaft (above deflector alcove)
Option 1.1:
Same as 1.0, but with non-core reactor and antimatter stores at the bottom of horizontal shaft (above deflector alcove)
Option 1.2:
Same as 1.0, but with non-core reactor in the humpback, with minimal matter and antimatter stores there also, and main matter stores elsewhere

Option 2.0:
Vertical TNG-style core(s) through neck, horizontal PTC back to humpback

The Two "Sternbach" Options:

Option 3.0:
Vertical swirl-core in secondary hull (down to "chasm" area) with horiziontal swirl-core back to humpback; no reactor elsewhere, antimatter in bottom of secondary hull
Option 3.1:
Same as 3.0, but with non-core reactor in "chasm pod" along with antimatter
Option 3.2:
Same as 3.0, but with non-core reactor in the humpback along with minimal matter and antimatter stores, main matter stored elsewhere

Option 4.0:
TNG-style core in secondary hull (down to "chasm" area) with antimatter in bottom of secondary hull

Hopefully, despite the lack of grahpics, this makes our remaining options clear. Generally, there are two overarching options remaining, as I see it, between "Classic" and "Sternbach," with some rather intriguing possiblities for variance therein.

The downside of the Sternbach, of course, is that we lose the chasm as a shuttlebay. I'm not seeing this as necessarily being a deal-breaker; designing that bay to be an intentional ease-of-access to the ship's potentially high maintenance reactors and EPS conduits could explain it nicely. Cargo loading could easily be achieved through the flat portion of the secondary hull, in panels that I have long assumed are really doors, anyway.

What think you, fellow Treknologists?

 

[Workbee]

@Bob - IIRC, someone in a past thread compared screencaps from the end of TVH against the Shane Johnson photos and even though the text in okudagrams were unintelligible screencap, the HD gave *just* enough resolution to compare the length of the text. Wish I could remember the thread, but it was conclusively determined that the portion that said "transwarp" in Shane Johnson's book COULD NOT have said transwarp in TVH. Likely, it only said warp.

In universe, since Excelsior was the prototype for Transwarp in TSFS, and TVH was so recent, it seems unlikely that the older type ships could have been retrofitted with the transwarp technology yet. Perhaps by the time TUC, but not by TVH, so it makes sense that it the Ent-A only has conventional warp at this point.

 

[Praetor]

Well, let's not forget that "Mr. Scott's Guide" assumed the A was a newbuild.

I should also mention my philosophical approach for warp technology and the way I'm thinking through this warp stuff.

My thinking on Excelsior reflects an evolving viewpoint (on my part) that assumes that for TOS, and possibly even for the refit, that most matter/antimatter reactions took place in the nacelles, with interconnectivity between them and a smaller "control" reactor in the hull. For TOS, we have enough references to matter and antimatter in the nacelles which, I think coupled with the stated intent of Mr. Jefferies to keep dangerous things away from the crew, and from TMP the intent of Mr. Probert that the TMP intermix shaft is basically a big power transfer conduit, that we can see the potential for main reactions happening in the nacelles themselves. For TOS, we do also have the idea of a reactor in the hull from episodes such as "Elaan of Troyious," hence my notion of a "control" reactor that is used to regulate and/or jumpstart the nacelle reactors. I think the same pattern was probably true for the refit... just what was at the bottom of the intermix shaft? The main difference in the TOS version and the refit would be greater interconnectivity in the latter, and possible and overall streamlined setup.

Obviously, ENT and the TNG era are a bit different. For ENT, we have an overly complicated system that seems to put a simple boiler-style reactor in the hull, and then somehow accelerate the plasma to the nacelles. I could see, as the design simplified, moving the main reactions to the nacelles. Later, TNG seems to move the 'acceleration' component to the matter and antimatter intjections, and go for a more focused reaction chamber.

How do I reconcile Bussard collectors with this? Simple. I think that they existed on ENT primarily as a way to aid in the acceleration of the plasma in the nacelles. By TOS, these "matter intakes" did more or less the same thing, and the same for the refit - until apparently being dropped from the Excelsior design. By the time they were re-added on the Enterprise-B, I think they had taken on the "simple" fuel replenishing role we see in TNG and beyond.

Anyhoo, hope that explains things a bit for where I'm thinking from.

As one final thought regarding the Excelsior chasm - do you suppose it's possible that the ILM modelmakers took notice of the blue glowing windows on the refit that we traditionally accept as a botanical garden, and designed the chasm as an expanded feature of this, which they took to be some sort of engineering component? Just a random thought.

 

[Robert Comsol]

That would follow, yes. Does anyone have a good close-up view of the deflector area of the original miniature? It's possible they might have thought of this and inscribed an area in the top of the deflector housing to infer a core/antimatter emergency ejection hatch, like what is shown in the Jackill's version.

I think the only great pictures of that area that exist are from its life as the Lakota - and we can be fairly certain that the area was repainted when the add-ons were added, as the deflector dish itself was also replaced.

No offense, but I believe there is a half-written law in starship design according to which antimatter pods are to be located in sections aboard a ship from where these can easily be ejected in case of antimatter confinement failure - and ejecting an antimatter pod assembly right in front of a high-energetic deflection beam looks like a very bad idea.

I'm getting increasingly suspicious that some participating in this thread are (deliberately?) unaware of the official TMP Enterprise cutaway, drawn by David Kimble who also drew the Official TMP Blueprints, both items have been authenticated and approved by Andrew Probert.

The cutaway shows the "antimatter pods" at the bottom part of the engineering hull (that was the text annotation of the first TMP print of this magnificent cutaway). It stands to reason (we are still in the 23rd Century for starters?) that the space for these pods aboard the Excelsior will take up an equal amount of space in relation to the overall size.

So while we are discussing possible intermix shaft structures I fail to notice that the space required by the antimatter pods or the matter tanks is even an issue, but one, IMHO, that needs to be addressed first before doing these interesting schematics.

As for the practical location of the antimatter pods to be jettisoned in case of an emergency I can only see the bottom of the engineering hull (TMP Enterprise style) or the humpback between the nacelles (Crazy Eddie proposal?), but most definitely not in front of the nav deflector...

I have been suggesting (obviously in vain) that we should first try to figure out what some of the Excelsior structures are (like this unusual connecting neck which really looks like the proverbial sore thumb) or what these are not before concerning ourselves with interior details.
The only lead I can offer here is a similar but significantly smaller structure at the stern of the TMP Enterprise's connecting dorsal which reads "photon exhaust".

And while I agree that the TOS Enterprise had antimatter in the nacelles, I can't see any hint in the Kimble cutaway other than the bottom of the engineering hull.

Considering that the front of the Enterprise's, Reliant's and Stargazer's nacelles had these "space-energy/matter sinks" I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the M/AM reaction for the warp drive occurs in the nacelles (or elsewhere in the shaft where and when required) but the actual location for the antimatter pods has been pretty much settled by Kimble and Probert so I don't see the necessity for second-guessing.

Bob

 

[B.J.]

As one final thought regarding the Excelsior chasm - do you suppose it's possible that the ILM modelmakers took notice of the blue glowing windows on the refit that we traditionally accept as a botanical garden, and designed the chasm as an expanded feature of this, which they took to be some sort of engineering component? Just a random thought.

To me, it looks more reminiscent of the glowing shuttlebay openings on the aft of the Reliant.

 

[Praetor]

No offense, but I believe there is a half-written law in starship design according to which antimatter pods are to be located in sections aboard a ship from where these can easily be ejected in case of antimatter confinement failure - and ejecting an antimatter pod assembly right in front of a high-energetic deflection beam looks like a very bad idea.

None taken, and this is something I started thinking about when 137th asked the question, but didn't want to bring up yet. The other thing to take into consideration, besides the highly energetic nature of the deflector dish, is that if the ship is moving forward, the laws of physics are going to push the pods back into the deflector as they're ejected, unless they're going to be ejected with such force that they rush away from the ship too quickly for this to happen.

I'm getting increasingly suspicious that some participating in this thread are (deliberately?) unaware of the official TMP Enterprise cutaway, drawn by David Kimble who also drew the Official TMP Blueprints, both items have been authenticated and approved by Andrew Probert.

The cutaway shows the "antimatter pods" at the bottom part of the engineering hull (that was the text annotation of the first TMP print of this magnificent cutaway). It stands to reason (we are still in the 23rd Century for starters?) that the space for these pods aboard the Excelsior will take up an equal amount of space in relation to the overall size.

So while we are discussing possible intermix shaft structures I fail to notice that the space required by the antimatter pods or the matter tanks is even an issue, but one, IMHO, that needs to be addressed first before doing these interesting schematics.

A very valid point. However, it's well recorded via interviews with Mr. Probert on the IDIC page that back when he designed the ship (and possibly when that official cutaway was done) that he was unclear on the specific details of the ship's functions. I don't think this rules out the possibility of a reactor down there somewhere. Also, it's rather convenient we don't get a good look in the nacelles, isn't it?

As for the practical location of the antimatter pods to be jettisoned in case of an emergency I can only see the bottom of the engineering hull (TMP Enterprise style) or the humpback between the nacelles (Crazy Eddie proposal?), but most definitely not in front of the nav deflector...

Fair enough. Of course, it prompts me to this question - should the pods be ejectable? As you said, it is the 23rd century. Maybe they're simply not, and the "best" location is one where the odds are that they won't be hit by weapons fire?

I have been suggesting (obviously in vain) that we should first try to figure out what some of the Excelsior structures are (like this unusual connecting neck which really looks like the proverbial sore thumb) or what these are not before concerning ourselves with interior details.

Not in vain at all, sir.

The only lead I can offer here is a similar but significantly smaller structure at the stern of the TMP Enterprise's connecting dorsal which reads "photon exhaust".

And while I agree that the TOS Enterprise had antimatter in the nacelles, I can't see any hint in the Kimble cutaway other than the bottom of the engineering hull.

Considering that the front of the Enterprise's, Reliant's and Stargazer's nacelles had these "space-energy/matter sinks" I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the M/AM reaction for the warp drive occurs in the nacelles (or elsewhere in the shaft where and when required) but the actual location for the antimatter pods has been pretty much settled by Kimble and Probert so I don't see the necessity for second-guessing.

If the pods are in the secondary hull itself, then perhaps this works. Perhaps the shaft pumps antimatter up to the engines, where matter taken in through the intakes reaches a "critical mass" with the antimatter, resulting in drive plasma being created, and then energizing the engines. In turn, plasma comes back down and is routed to the deflection crystal.

To me, it looks more reminiscent of the glowing shuttlebay openings on the aft of the Reliant.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out... the Reliant's bay doors did indeed glow.

 

[B.J.]

The other thing to take into consideration, besides the highly energetic nature of the deflector dish, is that if the ship is moving forward, the laws of physics are going to push the pods back into the deflector as they're ejected, unless they're going to be ejected with such force that they rush away from the ship too quickly for this to happen.

Unless the ship is accelerating forward, then no, the pods won't come back towards the deflector (assuming we're talking about real-world sub-light physics here). If you're moving at a constant speed, you'll never see those pods again.

 

[Praetor]

Hm, really? Shows what I know about actual physics.

Right, because the pods would be going the same speed as the ship, unless the ship was gaining speed. Derp.

In that case, I don't have as much of a problem with it. The obvious easy solution would be to just put the antimatter pods below the deflector and have antimatter lines running up to the core astride the deflector machinery to a horizontal neck core. A little convoluted, but it'd work.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I suspect that if the situation became necessary to jettison the A/M pods or the core, the ship would be doing anything BUT accelerating.

 

[Workbee]

Does the Excelsior MSD from TUC reveal any helpful information here? I have been unsuccessfully trying to locate an image of it sufficient resolution. I was able to find one in the past, but somehow my searching skills are failing me today.

 

[blssdwlf]

As one final thought regarding the Excelsior chasm - do you suppose it's possible that the ILM modelmakers took notice of the blue glowing windows on the refit that we traditionally accept as a botanical garden, and designed the chasm as an expanded feature of this, which they took to be some sort of engineering component? Just a random thought.

This is interesting as when TMP came out, I wasn't sure what those blue glowing windows were other than it was different from the other windows. It wasn't until I saw blueprints and went, ah they're for a garden. But later as I tried my hand in figuring out the internals of the engineering hull I decided to leave them as glowing bits that were part of engineering since the garden itself is never visible in any of the movies. Just IMHO.

 

[Workbee]

^Back in the day, I used to think that those windows were where the Red Dec were (until TVH I did not know that they were on the same side). Now that I think about it, I kind of wish that they were. Simply because it would be nice to tie an element of visual interest on the model to a part of the ship we saw. In TMP, the closest thing would be the Rec Deck. We see it a couple times in the film (even though it was only seen in that one film, the model WAS made for TMP. The other films were just gravy). Though I realize this doesn't make sense as far as the deck layout is concerned. TWOK was the first time we had an interior for some "distinctive" part of the ship (aside from the bridge).


In a similar vein, I wondered what was behind that strip of yellow windows / lights on the Enterprise D neck.

 

[Praetor]

I suspect that if the situation became necessary to jettison the A/M pods or the core, the ship would be doing anything BUT accelerating.

Ha, you make a good point.

Does the Excelsior MSD from TUC reveal any helpful information here? I have been unsuccessfully trying to locate an image of it sufficient resolution. I was able to find one in the past, but somehow my searching skills are failing me today.

Do you mean the dorsal MSD? I don't have an image of the graphic, but here's a compilation of screenshots from TUC. ("Flashback" offered nothing.) Click to embiggen.


Or perhaps you meant these, which I believe are from the turbolifts in "Flashback"? I'm not sure if they are the real deal, but they appear to be warmed over versions of the Enterprise-B cross-section. Click to embiggen.



Thinking a little more about warp propulsion systems, their evolution, and how they fit into the Great Experiment, I see it this way:

1. NX-01: single reactor setup, complex accelerator system
2. NCC-1701: multi reactor setup, small control reactor in the hull which is used to prime and regulate larger primary propulsion reactors in the engines; all three reactors interconnected
3. NCC-1701 (refit): multi reactor setup, larger swirl core (replacing reactor) serves as primary intermix chamber in the hull connecting two smaller secondary reactors in the engines; swirl core serves as connection between nacelle reactors

Then the 4th step is Excelsior, and I can see that going one of two ways:

1. The Excelsior negates nacelle reactors for a larger swirl core powering everything
2. The Excelsior negates nacelle reactors AND replaces a swirl core with a TNG style core that powers everything

Either way, the biggest thing with the Excelsior in the evolutionary chain will be that it negates nacelle reactors.

With that, here are the two options.

Option One, Swirl Core:

This has primary deuterium tankage under the impulse engines, secondary tanks in the neck, and antimatter tanks in the humpback. While I suppose the vertical core could be ejected, it would leave a hell of a lot more inside the ship horizontally.

Option One, TNG Core:

This has primary deuterium tankage under the impulse engines, secondary tanks in the neck, and antimatter tanks above the deflector alcove. (Humpback tanks wouldn't work for the TNG style core, without long lines feeding it which IMO are impractical.) There's a step down in the PTC, but I think it's reasonable.

Option Two, Swirl Core:

This has primary deuterium tankage under the impulse engines, secondary tanks in the neck, and antimatter tanks in the keel (although they could also go in the humpback, I suppose, but this would make the vertical section kind of pointless.) The main shuttlebay is actually mostly remained intact by moving the vertical section forward a bit, and the deflector still fits.

Option Two, TNG Core:

This has primary deuterium tankage under the iimpulse engines, secondary tanks near the secondary hull flattop, and antimatter tanks in the keel. Again, the main shuttlebay is actually mostly remained intact by moving the core forward a bit, and the deflector still fits. There's a step-up in the PTC, but again I don't find it unreasonable.

On a side note, I've just discovered the fifteenth deck in the secondary hull of the 467 meter ship reasonably aligns to where it was depicted in "Generations"... or at least close enough if we assume Scotty and company's balcony was on deck 13. Lettered saucer decks, anyone?

And in case anyone notices, in all of these I moved the horizontal PTC down a bit to the "middle" where it seems to just make more sense.

Thoughts on the warp reactor setup?

 

[Workbee]

This was what I was looking for.

My thought is, option one for swirl core, with either swirl or tng core is fine. Simplest is best, and with the lower humpback portion seemingly dedicated mostly to shuttle bay / cargo hold, best to let the transfer conduit run along the top of the secondary hull. Similar to how depected to the Enterprise B MSD I suppose. I still think since there is an impulse deflector crystal of sorts, it should connect up to, and align to it. Beyond that, I am open. It looks like they took care to frame the shot of Excelsior's engine room in TSFS to avoid the main warp core / conduit (since it was a redress of the Enterprise engine room). I think that frees us to depict the core however we wish. Could be anything really. Maybe it's really neon yellow with hot pink stripes

 

[Maurice]

Sorry, that is NOT "fraud", which means deception for financial or personal gain.