Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

[Mytran]

...After I laid out the decks on the refit, I copy/pasted into a new layer and adjusted the outline of the TOS ship to closely match the refit saucer's diameter in a plausible way. Then, I adjusted where the decks fell to where it to where it looked like it made sense.

Ah, then maybe I should ask - what was the thought in making the refit 415 metres (1361 feet)? Or was this in turn related to the new size of the Excelsior?

 

[Praetor]

Correct - that was related to the new Excelsior size. Mostly, it was maintaining the official size ratio between the Excelsior and Enterprise.

It started as an exercise - "If the Excelsior is really this big, how would the Enterprise look next to it if I blew it up to match?" So I made the Enterprise 2/3 the length of the Excelsior, and adjusted a wee bit to make the saucer edge decks work. The TOS Enterprise and Miranda scaling were both derived from this, but the Oberth was not. The Oberth was simply based on the wrecked Vico model from TNG.

Just realized I forgot to reply to KingDaniel yesterday...

The Reliant's saucer rim windows have always looked wrong to me. As if the modeller put one row in the centre of the rim, realized his mistake and crammed another row just underneath to better resemble the Enterprise's two-deck arrangement - only if there were two decks, the upper row would be ankle-high and the lower would be overhead.

The solution, of course, is a three or four-deck saucer rim

Yeah - generally agreed about those little window clusters. That's partly why I am rather happy that the study I did put a half-deck above and a half-deck below. Room for various sundry utilities and whatnot, plus it makes those windows a bit less crummy.

I have yet to try to actually see how the big ships line up vis a vis the windows on the models. I know how the Excelsior's windows do, of course, since that was my jumping off point. Perhaps I'll look into that this evening.

 

[Praetor]

Ok, I found some decent drawings to compare to the above scaling. Here's the full image, and detailed studies are afterward.


First up, the TOS Enterprise, using Sinclair's drawings of the eleven-footer.

Pretty good for the most part, IMO. The saucer and secondary hull are both pretty much perfect, with the odd misplaced window here and there.

Next up, the refit Enteprise:

Pretty good, but not quite as good as the TOS ship. The docking ring looks a little big, and the botanical garden window seems a little too big. Still, not bad. And again the saucer is pretty much perfect. The landing deck not aligning with the hangar bay door lower area bothers me a bit.

Next, the Miranda:

It's a little hard to see my green lines, and the drawing I found to use doesn't quite match up with the outline, but accounting for that I think it's about as good a match as the refit. Plus, the windows in the aft area align really well.

Finally, the Oberth:

Again, the drawing isn't perfect, but the saucer windows align fairly well... even if the dome windows don't really align with anything.

Thoughts?

 

[blssdwlf]

@Praetor - on the TMP Enterprise, are you referring to the circular docking port on the engineering hull not lining up with the flight deck of the shuttlebay? If so, it's because the docking ring is higher than the deck and you'd need a ramp to come down. (Andrew Probert made that clarification.)

 

[Mytran]

Regarding the issues with the E-refit, maybe the decks in the secondary hull are simply a little taller? At the very least we know that the ceiling height for Main Engineering is 12'

 

[The Librarian]

The botanical garden being a bit off makes sense to me, since it would need a larger space than normal and so its interior might not line up with the rest of the deck. You'd need room for plants, soil, and whatnot unless all you plan to have is a few flowers.

 

[Praetor]

@Praetor - on the TMP Enterprise, are you referring to the circular docking port on the engineering hull not lining up with the flight deck of the shuttlebay? If so, it's because the docking ring is higher than the deck and you'd need a ramp to come down. (Andrew Probert made that clarification.)

Yessir. Thanks for reminding me of that.

Regarding the issues with the E-refit, maybe the decks in the secondary hull are simply a little taller? At the very least we know that the ceiling height for Main Engineering is 12'

Great point. I hadn't quite gotten there, but I think maybe so. I'm making an effort with these to keep the refit and the TOS decks as consistent as humanly possible, so it might be something I'd do for both.

As for the landing deck not aligning with the bottom of the doors, I've concluded it's a simple matter to lift the landing deck from the deck to allow for more deck space in the hangar beneath... of course if I increase all the engineering hull deck heights, that may no longer matter.

The botanical garden being a bit off makes sense to me, since it would need a larger space than normal and so its interior might not line up with the rest of the deck. You'd need room for plants, soil, and whatnot unless all you plan to have is a few flowers.

Another great point.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm not interested in addressing the Abramsverse ships, really, at all. I also don't need them for my purposes.

Since I seem to be the only one who IS, I'll add that to my "pet projects" queue.

From that analysis, however (inspired by King Daniel among others) I'm getting into the idea that there's no reason for the decks on starships to actually be continuous; and that a considerable bit of space may exist between them, which would actually explain the undercut for the saucer pretty nicely. That would mean some of the rooms/modules/compartments situated on those decks would have a bit of wiggle room for how they fit into the ship; a conference room might have a ten-foot ceiling while crew quarters are only eight, corridors are only seven, etc.

That might account for the lack of lineup between windows and deck spaces, especially if one assumes that some "plubming paths" built into the ship require parts of the deck to be raised or lowered to accommodate them.

The Excelsior model actually was scaled much larger than has been generally accepted, as I think I've proven. I'm following the logical conclusion of that to see what other classes scaled to match would be like.

I'm not sure that it matters, considering how rarely the other classes appear in the same frame with the Excelsior (and then only in DS9, which has widespread scaling issues of its own).

In this entire process, though, try to remember that length isn't nearly as important as volume. The JJ-prize, for example, is VOLUMETRICALLY about as large as an Ambassador class starship while even a 622 meter Excelsior would be about 2/3rds of that.

 

[blssdwlf]

Regarding the issues with the E-refit, maybe the decks in the secondary hull are simply a little taller? At the very least we know that the ceiling height for Main Engineering is 12'

Agreed. The deck above main engineering and 5 decks below it are 12' tall based on the engineering scenes. The cargo bay scene also corroborates a 12' deck height going further back.

 

[B.J.]

From that analysis, however (inspired by King Daniel among others) I'm getting into the idea that there's no reason for the decks on starships to actually be continuous; and that a considerable bit of space may exist between them, which would actually explain the undercut for the saucer pretty nicely. That would mean some of the rooms/modules/compartments situated on those decks would have a bit of wiggle room for how they fit into the ship; a conference room might have a ten-foot ceiling while crew quarters are only eight, corridors are only seven, etc.

That might account for the lack of lineup between windows and deck spaces, especially if one assumes that some "plubming paths" built into the ship require parts of the deck to be raised or lowered to accommodate them.

NOW you're speaking my language! Ever since I visited the USS Alabama, spent the night, and got to crawl all over that ship, I've realized that it makes no sense to have continuous decks or standard deck heights. The ship (ANY ship, really) is designed to house the equipment it carries first, and any personnel considerations come a distant second. (Unless you're talking about a luxury yacht, but even it has crew areas that aren't exactly easy to walk around.)

I've also come to the conclusion that having corridors everywhere also make no sense, but that's a discussion for a different time!

 

[Patrickivan]

From that analysis, however (inspired by King Daniel among others) I'm getting into the idea that there's no reason for the decks on starships to actually be continuous; and that a considerable bit of space may exist between them, which would actually explain the undercut for the saucer pretty nicely. That would mean some of the rooms/modules/compartments situated on those decks would have a bit of wiggle room for how they fit into the ship; a conference room might have a ten-foot ceiling while crew quarters are only eight, corridors are only seven, etc.

That might account for the lack of lineup between windows and deck spaces, especially if one assumes that some "plubming paths" built into the ship require parts of the deck to be raised or lowered to accommodate them.

NOW you're speaking my language! Ever since I visited the USS Alabama, spent the night, and got to crawl all over that ship, I've realized that it makes no sense to have continuous decks or standard deck heights. The ship (ANY ship, really) is designed to house the equipment it carries first, and any personnel considerations come a distant second. (Unless you're talking about a luxury yacht, but even it has crew areas that aren't exactly easy to walk around.)

I've also come to the conclusion that having corridors everywhere also make no sense, but that's a discussion for a different time!

It really does help explain window positioning issues. It's a shame that so many on screen and published material shows the same standard deck arrangement. Personally, I've generally accepted oddities in each deck including height variances through out. It just makes sense.

 

[Workbee]

Wow! Been away for a while. Love the discussion here. Great work as always Praetor.

From that analysis, however (inspired by King Daniel among others) I'm getting into the idea that there's no reason for the decks on starships to actually be continuous; and that a considerable bit of space may exist between them, which would actually explain the undercut for the saucer pretty nicely. That would mean some of the rooms/modules/compartments situated on those decks would have a bit of wiggle room for how they fit into the ship; a conference room might have a ten-foot ceiling while crew quarters are only eight, corridors are only seven, etc.

That might account for the lack of lineup between windows and deck spaces, especially if one assumes that some "plubming paths" built into the ship require parts of the deck to be raised or lowered to accommodate them.

NOW you're speaking my language! Ever since I visited the USS Alabama, spent the night, and got to crawl all over that ship, I've realized that it makes no sense to have continuous decks or standard deck heights. The ship (ANY ship, really) is designed to house the equipment it carries first, and any personnel considerations come a distant second. (Unless you're talking about a luxury yacht, but even it has crew areas that aren't exactly easy to walk around.)

I've also come to the conclusion that having corridors everywhere also make no sense, but that's a discussion for a different time!

I recently visited the USS Iowa down her in Long Beach and I have to concur. It isn't practical or even realistic to expect that all decks have the same height. Ships, unlike high rise buildings, are constructed around function requirements that apartment complexes, office buildings or even luxury cruise ships are not subject to. My take is, (and it looks like this has already been adopted) let the windows help inform the deck spacing, rather than try to impose a constant deck spacing throughout the ship and trying to squeeze the windows in.

WB

 

[Robert Comsol]

Analogies to 20th Century warships have been presented here. What about luxury cruise ships? Do these have the same issues? (I consider the Enterprise to be a ship somewhere between both extremes).

Regarding the TOS Enterprise the Making of Star Trek said there are 16 engineering decks and according to my preliminary examinations these would match perfectly with the exterior windows and assuming an average height of 10'. However, the deck floor is noticably thicker on the center deck (or flight deck level).

Praetor, considering there is not that much space in the connecting dorsal of the TOS Enterprise these windows would beg for explanation assuming your deck lining were accurate.

Bob

 

[Mytran]

Dare I suggest again that these are sensors, not windows?

Or perhaps, little private rooms built into the spaces around the dorsal superstructure (as in the TMP novelisation)? That could account for at least some of the numerous lights in this (as you say) very compact area of the ship.

 

[B.J.]

Analogies to 20th Century warships have been presented here. What about luxury cruise ships? Do these have the same issues? (I consider the Enterprise to be a ship somewhere between both extremes).

I'd say yes, they do have the same issues, especially when you're in the "working areas" of the ship. Sure, most of the passenger areas have a constant deck floor, but even then, the deck heights vary quite a bit. Starfleet ships wouldn't need to cater to too many passengers, as most people aboard them are part of the crew and are there to work.

 

[Praetor]

I'm not interested in addressing the Abramsverse ships, really, at all. I also don't need them for my purposes.

Since I seem to be the only one who IS, I'll add that to my "pet projects" queue.

I think you should sir. No disrespect meant to the new films or anything, I just literally don't care for this particular project. I think it'll muddy the waters when they're already plenty muddy.

From that analysis, however (inspired by King Daniel among others) I'm getting into the idea that there's no reason for the decks on starships to actually be continuous; and that a considerable bit of space may exist between them, which would actually explain the undercut for the saucer pretty nicely. That would mean some of the rooms/modules/compartments situated on those decks would have a bit of wiggle room for how they fit into the ship; a conference room might have a ten-foot ceiling while crew quarters are only eight, corridors are only seven, etc.

That might account for the lack of lineup between windows and deck spaces, especially if one assumes that some "plubming paths" built into the ship require parts of the deck to be raised or lowered to accommodate them.

While I do like this notion, the thing that I find it hard to account for, particularly with the notion of decks of totally different heights, is when the corridor sets of say, engineering, are seen to have the same heights as the corridors leading to the transporter room. Having stuff between decks is easier to rectify. But then, of course, depending how much stock you put in the MSDs seen on screen for other starships I'm not calling much into question, we have kind of seen that there's not much space between decks.

Shrug.

The Excelsior model actually was scaled much larger than has been generally accepted, as I think I've proven. I'm following the logical conclusion of that to see what other classes scaled to match would be like.

I'm not sure that it matters, considering how rarely the other classes appear in the same frame with the Excelsior (and then only in DS9, which has widespread scaling issues of its own).

In this entire process, though, try to remember that length isn't nearly as important as volume. The JJ-prize, for example, is VOLUMETRICALLY about as large as an Ambassador class starship while even a 622 meter Excelsior would be about 2/3rds of that.

Good point. Still, an upsized Enterprise has certain virtues, or at least I think it does, which is part of why I'm trying to flesh it out. And of course in upsizing it, you have to upsize anything that uses its parts, too.

Regarding the issues with the E-refit, maybe the decks in the secondary hull are simply a little taller? At the very least we know that the ceiling height for Main Engineering is 12'

Agreed. The deck above main engineering and 5 decks below it are 12' tall based on the engineering scenes. The cargo bay scene also corroborates a 12' deck height going further back.

I'm actually going forward with this notion, and carrying it 'backwards' to the TOS version. I'm trying to maintain as much consistency between the two for reasons I'll make plain soon.

Wow! Been away for a while. Love the discussion here. Great work as always Praetor.

I recently visited the USS Iowa down her in Long Beach and I have to concur. It isn't practical or even realistic to expect that all decks have the same height. Ships, unlike high rise buildings, are constructed around function requirements that apartment complexes, office buildings or even luxury cruise ships are not subject to. My take is, (and it looks like this has already been adopted) let the windows help inform the deck spacing, rather than try to impose a constant deck spacing throughout the ship and trying to squeeze the windows in.

WB

Thanks, WB and I'm starting to think you're right. If I'm really going to do this from a window approach with Excelsior, perhaps I'm beholden to do the same with the other ships.

Analogies to 20th Century warships have been presented here. What about luxury cruise ships? Do these have the same issues? (I consider the Enterprise to be a ship somewhere between both extremes).

Regarding the TOS Enterprise the Making of Star Trek said there are 16 engineering decks and according to my preliminary examinations these would match perfectly with the exterior windows and assuming an average height of 10'. However, the deck floor is noticably thicker on the center deck (or flight deck level).

Praetor, considering there is not that much space in the connecting dorsal of the TOS Enterprise these windows would beg for explanation assuming your deck lining were accurate.

Bob

Those neck windows have always struck me as kind of odd. It almost seems like the designers wanted to get the secondary hull as far away from the primary as possible, and given the essentially "wasted" space of the neck, decided to dedicate it to observation lounges...

I'd say yes, they do have the same issues, especially when you're in the "working areas" of the ship. Sure, most of the passenger areas have a constant deck floor, but even then, the deck heights vary quite a bit. Starfleet ships wouldn't need to cater to too many passengers, as most people aboard them are part of the crew and are there to work.

True. Perhaps I'll revisit this whole thing just a bit.

 

[Praetor]

Alright, I've revisited the scaling a bit. I decided that what this project began with was the notion of scaling models to their windows. To that end, I decided to throw out any artificial size ratios, which I used to obtain the previous diagram.

Here's what I ended up with so far. Click for enbiggenment.


Here are some tentative figures based on above:

Galaxy 2532px / 641 m
Excelsior 2364px / 598 m
Enterprise refit 1372px / 347 m
Enterprise TOS 1312px / 332 m
Miranda 1092px / 276 m
Constellation 1320px / 334 m

These are roughly scaled to one another. I established deck heights through an admittedly convoluted means. I began with the TOS Enterprise, aligning decks based on window rows. I then applied this scaling to the refit. Part of my thinking makes use of a combination of Shaw's notion of hull pressure compartments combined with Nob Akimoto's notion that Excelsior was the first starship with a truss-integrated structural integrity field. So, the refit would actually retain nearly identical deck structure to the TOS refit process. (The refit would be accomplished by separating the various main assemblies of the hull pressure compartments, rebuilding and refurbishing them, and reassembling them, allowing the reassembled components to retain the same core elemnts but have a strikingly different appearance.)

Using the TOS and refit Enterprise, I was then able to scale the Miranda and Constellation. I left out the Oberth, temporarily, since it's a separate scaling not really related to anything on the above. And the Excelsior retains her scaling from my window analysis.

So basically official sizes are scuttled, but they're not as big as before. The Constellation to me looks pretty comparable to how the Stargazer/Hathaway looked next to the D. The two Enterprises are bigger, but still comfortably smaller. The big Excelsior is kind of an oddball, but I'm really finding myself wanting to put a Defiant next to her. Despite her dubious size, I can't help but wonder how it would look versus the Lakota/Defiant shots...

Thoughts overall?

 

[Nob Akimoto]

The Sovereign thread had me thinking the same thing about Defiant.

Maybe the Lakota comparison and the comparison to the E-E in First Contact might yield a similar ratio.

 

[Nob Akimoto]

So here's a scaled image of that using a 775m E-E and a 598m Lakota and a 120m Defiant.

Accounting for camera angles, I actually think it's pretty close to the comparisons of the Defiant both in the FC Battle and "Paradise Lost".

The latter obviously has to include the distance of the ships into the scaling.

So maybe we've been getting it wrong all along. It wasn't the Defiant scale being off! Everything else was being given wrong dimensions!

And yes, that's Char Aznable's custom Defiant. (I needed to colorize it so it'd actually show up at that resolution).

 

[blssdwlf]

@Praetor - Seems reasonable. Bringing the TMP-E down a little works a little better for the docking port sizing.