Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

[Robert Comsol]

Thank you very much Mr. George for taking the time to share these production backgrounds and anecdotes with us. Very insight- and delightful!

If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago) some of the detail in the landing bay and the grid frisket patterns used on the hull were left over under-construction Death Star etched brass.

Earlier in this thread there were discussions what the stern chasm in the lower engineering hull might be useful for. It looks like you just provided the answer.

Can we conclude from your statement that the aft hangar on top was envisioned for smaller, onboard vehicles and the one in the chasm for bigger ships, similar to the hangar bay of an Imperial Star Destroyer?

Bob

P.S.
Thanks to Maurice for getting in touch with you!

 

[Albertese]

Whoa! Did Bill George himself just post?!?!? Awesome!

Your work on Bladerunner, Star Trek, and Star Wars has been the main inspiration of my hobbies. In fact, for a while I was seriously trying to get into visual effects (but I shoulda been born 15 years earlier, everything is computers these days, and I like the hands-on models.) The whole story about your Y-Wing model is one of my favorite yarns from the industry.

It's a pleasure to be on the same BBS as you! Don't be a stranger!

--Alex

 

[Maurice]

I really don’t think there is a definitive answer to this question...

Hey Bill, thanks for chiming in so quickly after I messaged you.

One thing you said to me on IM, which you didn't mention above, was this:

(via IM)...The only common factor that you could use between the models would be the size of the round port holes assuming they are a standard size. On the Enterprise they were about 3/8th of an inch and on the Excelsior they were like a sixteenth or less.

Lemme buy you coffee when you're back.

 

[Lord Garth FOI]

This is getting even cooler now

 

[Praetor]

Holy crap it's Bill George! I started reading the post before I saw the user name, and then did a double take.

Mr. George, as the instigator of this, let me just echo Bob and Albertese's comments. Your work speaks for itself, and as one of the Excelsior's fathers I must thank you. I've had a minor love affair with your ship for many years now, and her timeless lines are why I've been obsessed with her all these years. For Excelsior and your many other contributions to Trek, sci-fi, and the special effects world in general, I thank you, and I also hope you'll find some time to drop by every now and then!

I really don’t think there is a definitive answer to this question. The only description we had at the time was that it was “souped-up” and bigger than the Enterprise. The size the miniature was built to, was determined by the camera guys as being the optimal size to shoot. As I recall Nilo did that size comparison chart, but it wasn’t necessarily followed. The issue of true scale wasn’t a consideration. Budget, ease of use, art direction and dramatic intent were what influenced the construction of the ship. The current techniques of the ILM model shop also swayed the look of the ship.

Awesome! This confirms what I suspected about there not really being a precisely pinned down size. Out of curiosity, do you happen to recall whether Mr. Rodis made the chart before or after the model was built?

If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago) some of the detail in the landing bay and the grid frisket patterns used on the hull were left over under-construction Death Star etched brass.

So it is a landing bay after all! Woot. I'd echo Bob's question as to whether the intent was that it would function much like a Star Destroyer landing bay.

Nilo Rodis and Dave Carson had done a number of designs for the ship that I had built quickie prototypes of. I did finish a bit early and Nilo told me I could take a crack at one myself. When they were presented to Nimoy he chose the one I did because I think it looked the most like the Enterprise. Although the prototype had the basic look of the final ship it was a bit frumpy.

I've read before that you consciously tried to give the Excelsior a Japanese flair, which I think is awesome. I hadn't realized that you had built all of the prototype models, but I knew that the one that was ultimately selected was all your doing.

The model shop supervisor, Steve Gawley, passed the prototype over to Mike Cochrane (I think) who under Steve’s guidance did a beautiful set of blueprints. He really improved and polished the design. The model was built directly from those drawings.

Dare I ask whether those blueprints might sit in some ILM archive somewhere?

Someone mentioned the size of the spacedock doors and how the Excelsior could never fit through them. It’s funny how we never even considered that! The Enterprise was scaled to the doors to make it a dramatic exit.

You guys did a better job than you think. I was just re-examining the Enterprise's breakaway scene, the one shot from above and behind as she backed out and started to pivot, and it looks in that scene like the doors are around 150% to 175% the width of the Enterprise, so depending just how much bigger she was, Excelsior should probably still fit.

That space dock interior was really a piece of crap. I came up with the idea of doing artwork and large size prints to use as wallpaper for the interior detailing and that stuff was always peeling off. Another funny memory of that set was that it was like a giant “whisper dish” like you would experience at a science museum. If you were on one side talking your voice would be super loud on the other. We farted a lot on that set to much hilarity!

In spacedock, everyone can hear you fart.

I think you guys did good... I mean, that set was huge. I hadn't realized until seeing a photo of some folks, probably including yourself, standing within it just how big it was!

Many years later the Excelsior came back to ILM to be re-fitted as the Enterprise B. The upper part of the primary hull and the lower part of the secondary hull were completely replaced. Those piece of the ship were changed enough that replacement was easier that retrofitting. Also, the fiberglass of both of those sections was starting to buckle. In case you are wondering, the original hull pieces do still exist. ☺ I’m sorry I couldn’t be of more help. From the comments I have read here you all know a lot more about this issue than I do. Cheers.

Interesting, I had wondered about the upper part of the saucer being different. Just how much of the lower part of the secondary hull was replaced? Lately, studying the Excelsior vs. the Enteprise-B versions of the model, I've started to wonder whether the secondary hull window patterns aren't vastly different. I've also noticed that the windows on the saucer superstructure seem to be a bit higher on the B.

I really don’t think there is a definitive answer to this question...

Hey Bill, thanks for chiming in so quickly after I messaged you.

One thing you said to me on IM, which you didn't mention above, was this:

(via IM)...The only common factor that you could use between the models would be the size of the round port holes assuming they are a standard size. On the Enterprise they were about 3/8th of an inch and on the Excelsior they were like a sixteenth or less.

Lemme buy you coffee when you're back.

Thanks for summoning Mr. George for us, Maurice! I wish I could buy you both a coffee. And thanks for pointing out the porthole sizing. I shall have to do some mathing.

Backing up a bit after that special guest appearance...

I find it interesting that the Ent-D and Excelcior might be so close in length. Indeed I wonder if it could be coincidence. They're not even that far apart in draft. Do you think there might be a Panamax effect happening here? (Panamax --max vol to fit in Panama Canal.) Some sort of convenience that made a voluntary physical limitation to the length of starships that took hold for 60 years? Are there any ships we know of that exceeded that length betweeen Excel and Gal eras? It would explain the relatively strange placement of the Galaxy nacelles. What other vessel --besides Nebula-- attaches the nacelle so far back on the pylon?

On another topic, assuming impulse is a a fusion rocket, the exhaust is very likely centered on the ships' center of mass both port-n-starboard and alow-n-aloft, though not necessarily fore-n-aft. That means it should be possible to deduce the relative masses --and therefor densities-- of saucer, engineering and nacelles of at least some vessels, including Constitution and her refit; this should tell us something about the difference in construction between the two, especially nacelle density. This last data point might imply if the warp reactors were inboard or nacelle bound.

Wha'cha think?

Hm some interesting notions there. Regarding the former, what would you suppose the limiting factor to be?

Made another one with the Enterprise slightly further back:

Perhaps the Excelsior *on screen* really is much bigger than 467 meters!

You know, looking at them there, it seems like the Enterprise in the left image and Excelsior in the right image might be at around the same spot, and at the very least their deflector dishes look to be about the same size. I'm thinking the scaling matches up with the TUC scene fairly closely there.

 

[Maurice]

Y'all are welcome. I actually posted Bill's reply to me and then deleted it immediately when he said he would come on and reply himself, cause I wanted y'all to be surprised.

Bill's good people.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's stuff like this that makes the internet so fantastically awesome.

So... does anyone know if Mike Cochrane has an online presence?

 

[zDarby]

Hm some interesting notions there. Regarding the former, what would you suppose the limiting factor to be?

Yeah. Not sure on that one. It can't be spacedock: thats beam, not length or draft. It's probably not the shipyards, unless there's some distance they have trouble beaming material to, which doesn't make much sense. What ever it is has to be there since the 2280s...Or whenever Excelsior was commissioned.

Maybe there's a civilian facility so useful to Star Fleet they're willing to cater to it's size? ...I don't really like this solution.

The most reasonable thought I've had was the warp fields themselves where hard to make larger than 650 meters or so. Not sure if this really makes much sense either. But, then, what in warp physics really does?

 

[blssdwlf]

That's very awesome Maurice for talking to Bill George and WOW welcome to the boards Bill George!

I really don’t think there is a definitive answer to this question...

Hey Bill, thanks for chiming in so quickly after I messaged you.

One thing you said to me on IM, which you didn't mention above, was this:

(via IM)...The only common factor that you could use between the models would be the size of the round port holes assuming they are a standard size. On the Enterprise they were about 3/8th of an inch and on the Excelsior they were like a sixteenth or less.

Just a rough estimate- this would put the scaling of the physical Excelsior model (1/16" porthole) to be 1/6th of the physical Enterprise model (6/16" porthole). How long were the two physical models?

 

[Praetor]

It's stuff like this that makes the internet so fantastically awesome.

So... does anyone know if Mike Cochrane has an online presence?

Agreed, and I would love to know the answer to that question as well.

Hm some interesting notions there. Regarding the former, what would you suppose the limiting factor to be?

Yeah. Not sure on that one. It can't be spacedock: thats beam, not length or draft. It's probably not the shipyards, unless there's some distance they have trouble beaming material to, which doesn't make much sense. What ever it is has to be there since the 2280s...Or whenever Excelsior was commissioned.

Maybe there's a civilian facility so useful to Star Fleet they're willing to cater to it's size? ...I don't really like this solution.

The most reasonable thought I've had was the warp fields themselves where hard to make larger than 650 meters or so. Not sure if this really makes much sense either. But, then, what in warp physics really does?

Heh, you're right, there's no single elegant solution, is there? Maybe the warp field is proportional to the size of the dilithium crystal. Or somethin.

That's very awesome Maurice for talking to Bill George and WOW welcome to the boards Bill George!

(via IM)...The only common factor that you could use between the models would be the size of the round port holes assuming they are a standard size. On the Enterprise they were about 3/8th of an inch and on the Excelsior they were like a sixteenth or less.

Just a rough estimate- this would put the scaling of the physical Excelsior model (1/16" porthole) to be 1/6th of the physical Enterprise model (6/16" porthole). How long were the two physical models?

The refit is 8 feet and the Excelsior is 7.5 feet.

See if you agree with my math...

refit - 8 foot
Excelsior - 7.5 foot

refit - 6/16 porthole = .375
Excelsior - 1/16 porthole = .0625

To bring them on par by accounting for the relative model sizes:

8/7.5 = 1.067
1.067*.0625 = .067

Finding the size difference once model size isn't an issue:

.375/.067 = 5.6

So the Excelsior should be 5.6 times the Enterprise's length if we go by the portholes.

Evaluating the official 305 meter refit length:

305 meters * 5.6 = 1708 meter Excelsior length

Crap in a hat.

There's also something I've noticed about the windows on the Excelsior vs. the Enterprise-B version of the secondary hull. I don't think they're the same, to the extent that I think the deck alignment would be different. I'll provide some graphics for evaluation later. I really don't want to redo these freaking deck alignments again.

 

[Maurice]

Let's bear in mind that Bill may not remember exactly how big the portholes are, so if any accurate plans show the portholes for both ships I'd begin there.

 

[Lord Garth FOI]

Let's ban all portholes

 

[Robert Comsol]

Unless these can come in different sizes (even on the same ship).

Here's an interesting link: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2794873

Bob

 

[Boris Skrbic]

I suppose the next step is to contact Nilo Rodis (regarding the chart) and Mike Cochrane (regarding the blueprints).

 

[Praetor]

I suppose the next step is to contact Nilo Rodis (regarding the chart) and Mike Cochrane (regarding the blueprints).

Yep. I don't suppose anyone knows them?

Unless these can come in different sizes (even on the same ship).

Here's an interesting link: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2794873

Bob

Great point. I see no reason that the Enterprise and Excelsior portholes need be the same size.

Meanwhile, I think I have a new problem of sorts. As I alluded to earlier, I think the decks on the secondary hull of the Excelsior and Enterprise-B are different. Like, completely different.

Compare:

Among other things, the short row at the aft curve of the secondary hull behind the lower stripe of the pennant on Excelsior seems to be completely be missing from the Enterprise-B. The row below the pennant on the B appears to correspond to the row below the missing row from Excelsior. Beyond this, all windows appear to be differently sized and located. The only windows that appear to me to actually be the same are the ones on the flattop edge around the top.

Here is the deck alignment for the secondary hull I derived from the detailed Enterprise-B drawings upthread:

As you can see comparing to the Enterprise-B photo above, this drawing is pretty spot-on accurate. I don't question the accuracy of this, at least according to the way the windows are on the B/Lakota.

Of course, lest we forget my study of the damage to the protrustions on the secondary hull from an earlier post.

This of course leaves us with a discrepancy between apparent window size on the rest of the secondary hull. We could decide that the protrusions have shorter decks that somehow connect to the decks in the main body. If those shorter decks are actually 2.65 meters tall as it appears based on Chekov's height, the ship is about 589 meters long. If those decks are actually 9.5 foot decks to match the saucer, then the ship is 641 meters long. If they're only 9 feet, we get 609 meters long. Tantalizing close, eh?

The closest we ever get to a dead-on side view of the
Excelsior is in TSFS when the Enterprise is entering spacedock:

Granted, having to scale it up this much increases the margin of error, but one can find 17 decks here, compared to the 15.5 decks derived from the Enterprise-B drawing above.

Compare this, then, to this opening shot from TUC, which is not quite a horizontally straight quarter front shot:

I've aligned the decks horizontally even, trying to match the aft edge of the secondary hull. Here we find 16 decks.

So we seem to know the story of the two ships, and those stories seem to be different. Since the external appearance of the two secondary hulls is so different, it may be no problem to accept that the interior of a standard Excelsior is quite different from a Enterprise-B/Lakota variant. However, this now gives me the problem of figuring out exactly how many decks there really are in the Excelsior secondary hull. Not quite square one, but kinda sorta. The one piece of good news is that we can keep the 9.5 foot alignments from the saucer, and potentially end up using the same deck heights in the secondary hull. I will play around with that next.

Sigh. If this ain't a labor of love I don't know what is.

Since we keep tiptoeing around the same vicinity, it may be advantageous for my efforts to simply decide that the size the model represents is "really" around 2000 feet instead of around 1500 feet, and not chain myself so precisely with established deck heights.

Some interesting math I discovered. Supposedly the Excelsior was intended to be 1.5 the Enterprise's 1000 foot length, which, after the model was completed, ended up being 1532.15 feet "officially."

1532.15 ft/1500 ft = 1.02143 variance
2000 ft * 1.02143 = 2042.86 feet = 622.67 meters

Hilarious.

 

[Nob Akimoto]

But but...a 1700m Excelsior would be COOL.

 

[Nob Akimoto]

Secondary question, would the portholes being much smaller on the Excelsior actually make much sense? How large are they on the Movie-Ent?

 

[Robert Comsol]

This TMP screencap should help to determine the size, although I would only go by the diameter of the circular docking port doors.

I don't trust transparent aluminium, that stuff has unpredictable properties.
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 ).

Close to the windows the interiors appear darker but from the distance they shine like a floodlight.

Bob

 

[B.J.]

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 ).

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! I suppose it didn't help that the graphic used in the encyclopedia and other places shows it flat.

 

[Robert Comsol]

^^ Oh my goodness, you are right!

Looks like my new favorite CGI artist is one of the few who got it straight: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fesarius2271/8007906853/in/photostream/ (I mean "sloped")

Bob