I'm sure I occasionally forget to be as clear as I should. I'm sharing my views and how I am going about things and forget to point that out. I appreciate the compliments, but a lot of the pushback is feeling very negative. And I do ramble. So a lot of that was not aimed at anyone in particular.
Look. I did not come up with the larger scale. It is a published size. Quasi official. I happen to agree with it for the reasons I have stated. I keep going on about the windows and shuttle bay because those really set the scale for me. I get you don't agree, but you aren't going to change my mind.
I’m not trying to change your mind. As I’ve mentioned numerous times, you’re welcome to take whatever non-canon ‘quasi’ official info into consideration for your head-canon. I personally go by what I see on screen. Head-canon means nothing to me.
Things that are canon can also have mistakes. But that’s too broad. In this instance I’m only talking about a model that appeared only once on screen as the Centaur and twice more as a background ship with no other ships near it to be able to determine scale. If we saw the Centaur later and it was sitting neck and neck with an Excelsior and they had the same size saucer? Then I would say that the Centaur is the same scale as the Excelsior and its size in ‘A Time to Stand’ is now the outlier and a mistake. But we didn’t see enough proof on screen for this to be the case.
Totally a side note, except as it relates to the original threads idea of sizing the Excelsior, but the idea of a small shuttlebay-like area for travel pods seems like a way to address the fact that ships like the Saladin don't seem to have shuttlebays. The dark triangles under the saucer that some consider landing gear could be drop-bays for travel pods, at least on the Saladin. The NX-01 (though not necessarily canon to TOS for me), even literally has cargo bay doors in the same place as this through which travel pods and work bees can access the cargo. I have not read everyone else's thoughts yet, but to me, the vessel circled in red in the upper left might be a Centaur, and very possibly could be, but I think the others are not. I feel like we are SUPPOSED to see Centaurs here, even if they may not be there much or at all.
I don't think we saw enough on screen to be certain of any scale. Stepping though the frames made it quite clear it can't be as small as you claim. The ships would have collided.
What I saw on screen works for me. This is a fictional show. The ships shouldn’t have made noise either, because there’s no noise in space. But they did. So it’s not an exact science.
Which is why I think there is room for you to interpret the size your way and for me to interpret it mine without claiming either is canon.
In the one case I mentioned, the Miranda torpedo pod, COULD look like the bulge under the Akira that holds the deflector dish. But it might not be. On the TOS pressure diagram, if the lines were decks, then, (assuming the very top of the bridge dome was a sensor or hull reinforcement with a window) the dark area near the top of the secondary hull would be the 7th deck. Since power is cut off from the Klingons at "Number 6 Deck" in "Day of The Dove," this may explain why Engineering seems to be deck 6 or 7 and yet appeared to be in the secondary hull in that episode. That would be interesting because that could put the Emergency Manual Monitor looking out over Engineering as being in the center of the ship and in the neck?? Sock says, "The Klingons control Deck 6 and Starboard Deck 7 while we control all Sections above." They came in from the upper level of engineering, so this seems to work. If ship configuration relates to a ship's role, then there seems to be a relationship like this: Constitution-Ptolemy Enterprise-Miranda Galaxy-Nebula Galaxy or Sovereign-Akira In each of these cases, one ship flown by our main characters that has a saucer and nacelles above a secondary hull. The other is a ship that has nacelles farther below the saucer and may not have a secondary hull. The second type of ship seems to combine peacetime science duties with lots of torp/probe launchers and the ability to carry cargo or shuttles. It is worth noting that the Akira's saucer notch is a forward-facing shuttlebay, and that the Akira was designed with the thought of being a carrier for fighter shuttles. It's flight deck would allow launching shuttles into battle out one set of doors (probably the front) while shuttles return through the other (probably the rear). This was not shown in episodes, but paintings by the designer shown in Star Trek the Magazine show the intent, if intent counts. I restate this obvious material above in order to interpolate more information about the Centaur, Curry and Raging Queen: 1. The relationship between the roles of the Excelsior and the roles of at least one of these ships is probably the same as the relationship between the Enterprise and the Miranda. 2. After seething the screencaps, I now realize that there are more similarities between the Akira and Centaur than I had thought. The Centaur's forward bay could be a precursor to the Akira's forward bay. 3. The Curry and Raging Queen might be Excelsior-family ships caring a mission pod in the style of the Ptolemy. 4. Ignoring the wrong and wrongly-scaled nacelles, the Centaur, Curry and Raging Queen might be the same or a similar class as the Centaur. Based on the above, the Centaur would have duties of science study/patrol, but due to its probe launchers could also launch many torpedoes in battle. It likely carries shuttles as well. It also might be able to haul a mission pod and would be part of a lineage that proceeds from Ptolemy, to Miranda, to Centaur, to Nebula to Akira. All this favors a larger size due to its likely role, whether I like it or not. The only options I see are: 1. The Curry/Raging Queen fill this "Miranda/Nebula-style" role, could be Excelsior-sized, despite that being rather undesirable. The Centaur could be small and is serves another role. 2. There could be another, unseen Excelsior-family class that fills the "Miranda/Nebula-role." 3. It could be that no ship for this role was ever built with Excelsior architecture, the Miranda staying in service instead. 4. The Centaur could be Excelsior-sized and fills the "Miranda/Nebula" role. The Curry Raging Queen either are or are not also a part of this class or group of classes. Options 3 and 4 seem the most likely to me. Can you link to your current most versions?
Canon, as defined by the people in charge of DS9 at the time, was what was shown on screen only. To my knowledge, that hasn’t changed. I realize you are using non-canon sources for your project, and that’s fine. But I choose to define the Centaur’s size by its appearance in ‘A Time to Stand’ only.
FWIW, Jackill solved this issue by having a shuttle deck/section built into the dorsal saucer with an elevator/door visible in that view, similar to how the runabout bays and elevators work on DS9. The assumption was that ships like the Saladin and later variants that didn't mount a dedicated shuttlebay could still carry a limited number of small craft. I'd have to go back and look to see if I think it's actually a practical solution, but that might be fun. I'd have to look back at how the PA ships were handled in SOTS. Personally, I think it would have been cool to see some Centaurs - even just the Centaur - added in as a fleet element. I'm just not convinced that ever occurred or was ever planned, as all those ships are Akiras. With regard to the Miranda type torpedo pod used on the Centaur, its placement doesn't match the most identifiable feature on the red ships - the saucer bulge. Viewing the Centaur from a similar angle, It would be much further back and also has a different shape from the Akira's deflector. I can't see, for myself, where a design like the Centaur would have the weapons pod overlap the saucer unless you were looking at it from a rather weird ventral angle (like the screencap with the nice bottom view of the saucer, but much more extreme than the Centaur's position there). Actually, I will admit my only nitpick with the Centaur's overall design is that I feel like it needs at least a small neck between the torpedo pod and the saucer, rather than having one right beneath the other. The front views always make me think the ship doesn't have enough clearance to launch torpedoes.
Actually, not only is there not a neck, but the pod actually is halfway recessed inside the rear of the saucer. This is going to be the hardest part of building my replica, as I have to either cut the rear saucer underside piece to the shape of the pod, or cut the pod itself to make it fit.
And you and I disagree on the size it appears in that episode. I think it is clearly much larger and further from the camera. So your opinion of the size is not canon, only based on one canon source. My opinion is based on not only how large it looks to me in that episode, but the fact that you can clearly see the windows on the bottom of the saucer and the details that match the Excelsior. Not once do you get a clear view of the bridge or anything on top of the saucer, including the hanger. Both of our opinions are based on canon sources. Both are further informed by non-canon sources. You take what Buckner said about the scale, I take what he said about the hanger. There really is no difference between how canon our points of view are, only what we see in the canon sources and how we supplement them with external sources. I had not previously ever seen those episodes so I was relying solely on external sources. But examining the canon sources, I believe they show an Excelsior scaled ship. You do not agree, but both are valid opinions based on what we seen on screen. Both have support from non-canon sources. Also, the Centaur is not part of any project I'm working on, just an interesting side discussion to the Excelsior. But for the Excelsior I always start with what we see on screen. But to achieve my goal of detailing the model, I have to use non-canon photos of the model. For scale there really is nothing to go by other than that half model display in the TNG Conference room. We seen the Enterprise and Excelsior together at the end of Star Trek VI and we saw them occupy mostly the same space in Star Trek III, but there is nothing to make a direct scale comparison. The ships at the end of Star Trek VI could be side by side, or one could be behind the other and just running parallel. The first appearance in TNG with the Galaxy class has the Excelsior class in front and the scaling is not clear, but both those shots give clear limitations and the 476 length, as well as others such as my ideal length of 543 m, fits with what we see. One of the joys and pains of photography is that it is very often impossible to judge scales based on a single photo if it doesn't have clear points of reference. In FX shots that can be even harder, especially when we have two isolated ships floating it the blackness of space. The only way you get a canon size of a ship is if they have the dimensions on screen or you have graphics that give a measurable scale. The half model wall in TNG is canon and it gives scale to all the ships included in it. So does the wall diagram in the Voyager episode In The Flesh. That PLUS the various FX scales confirms the size. Going only by what you see on screen leaves a lot of questions and guesswork. As far as I'm concerned you need other sources to get to the bottom of the issues what we see on screen leaves us.
The Saladin class deck plans solved this much earlier by putting very small hangers on the under side of the saucer where the TMP refit has the airlocks. Given my deck layout that would be workable, but very tight. As drawn it is cool, but I don't think it works. Jim Botaitis just did an update to the FJ/TOS era ships and he has his own take on the shuttle bay. Both can be found over on https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main2.php
I think here is where we agree and also slightly don't. Canon is what is on screen only, and the Centaur's size is defined by its appearance in ATtS, and I think it shouldn't be much different in size than the JemBug as that was the clear intent, but... I think theres a lot of wiggle room there. The JemBug is purposely lacking clear sizing details, and there's an implied relative equality in size, but there's still a good amount of wiggle room. In the DS9 era, an Excelsior saucer isn't very large compared to many of the newer ships. But... I also am 100% sure no conclusions of the Centaur can be based on the fact that it has Excelsior parts in the real world, in the same way one cannot compare a town dump truck with an earth mover and expect their strikingly similar looking bits to mean they are similarly sized. Or that the pieces of the Maquis raider and an Intrepid scale identically up or down, depending on how that franken-background-ship strikes ones fancy. So it's... smallish for a Federation ship, but vaguely so. I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion that it is Equal to Excelsior size, but it's only a notion, which is where much of my scaling in Trek ultimately sits: only as notions. I love to make my own versions more concrete, but the canon sits quite amorphous, with some few areas where things are quite specifically nailed down (and then, maybe just maybe not utterly contradicted).
Honestly, if the Centaur didn't have the Reliant bridge dome, I wouldn't even be having this discussion. The Reliant pod and struts aren't enough evidence for me to say that it's supposed to scale with the actual Reliant. It's just a former torpedo pod part that now serves as a (possibly much larger) secondary hull and nacelle pylons. But the fact that there's a Reliant bridge dome seals the deal for me that the ship is supposed to be scaled to the Reliant, not the Excelsior. There's really no reason why that bridge dome needs to be on the model other than to be used as a metric of the smaller scale that Gary Hutzel wanted the ship to be for that scene.
But you never see that bridge dome in any episode. The only time we see it from the top it is so far away that you can't make out any details. You can't see the bridge so that's not something you can scale based on what you can see.
I'm not mentioning the shuttlebay right now. I'm talking about scaling it according to what you can see. You CAN see the bottom of the saucer, the windows, the Excelsior details. You can see that it is much larger than the fighter. I quoted a fighter size earlier that you thought was too small and if it was that small the Centaur would have to come within centimeters of hitting it to even be close to that small. It is far more likely that the ships have a good deal of space between them and the Centaur is even larger. Just going by these two images: I'd scale the Centaur to between 350 and 400 meters. The windows are NOT Excelsior style windows, but they are Ambassador/Galaxy style windows. They match the windows on the bottom of the Enterprise C in size and shape. My attempt to roughly scale it just by the windows alone put it in that range. And as you know, if you assume that the Excelsior style saucer is the same size as the Excelsior, you get 380 meters, right in that range. So just going by what you can see in that one episode, I find it to be larger. The beauty of this is you aren't required. There is plenty of room for 210 m Centaur for you and 380 m Centaur for me.