The Excelsior - uncovering the design

[yotsuya]

The interesting thing about the photon torpedo tubes is that their distinctive design is a historical quirk left over from the time the Enterprise refit was designed. By the time the Excelsior first appears in Star Trek III it had been definitively established that photon torpedoes were physical objects that were launched through linear accelerator tubes, but at the time the Constitution refit was being designed for The Motion Picture Andrew Probert believed photon torpedoes to be forcefield-enclosed blobs of warp plasma spun off from the warp core itself by those glowing red emitters – kind of making them the "megaphaser cannons" of their day. The Miranda as a kitbash of the Constitution refit followed the same design cues, but almost no other class of starship has glowing photon torpedo launchers – the only one I can think of of the top of my head is the Intrepid.

The photon torpedos were always supposed to be a matter/antimatter weapon. And even after we see the shell, it is still animated the same way. So absolutely nothing changes. Also, Andrew Probert did not design the TMP refit. Richard Taylor adapted Matt Jefferies Phase II design (same saucer and secondary hull, updated hanger, main deflector, bridge, and extensive changes to the nacelles and pylons) and Andrew Probert came in later and made the alterations to the final TMP version. So the proper credit for the TMP design is Jefferies, Taylor, and Probert, in that order. Jefferies original design had a single mega phaser at the base of the neck, but as the project advanced, it changed to two circles and likely photon torpedoes (the script dates from Phase II). Taylor came on and changed the design, making that feature much wider, but as two indistinct glowing trapezoids. Probert came up with the final dual square tube design. The Excelsior actually is closer to his alternates with the round opening.

 

[Vale]

The photon torpedos were always supposed to be a matter/antimatter weapon. And even after we see the shell, it is still animated the same way. So absolutely nothing changes.

Well... quite a lot changes, depending on if it's a matter/antimatter charge held together by a forcefield, or an actual automated missile. Being able to steer it after firing it for one thing. The explosive yield and mechanism are the same but there's a lot of functional difference between "belching high-energy warp plasma" and "accelerating little smart bombs with engines".

Also, Andrew Probert did not design the TMP refit. Richard Taylor adapted Matt Jefferies Phase II design (same saucer and secondary hull, updated hanger, main deflector, bridge, and extensive changes to the nacelles and pylons) and Andrew Probert came in later and made the alterations to the final TMP version. So the proper credit for the TMP design is Jefferies, Taylor, and Probert, in that order. Jefferies original design had a single mega phaser at the base of the neck, but as the project advanced, it changed to two circles and likely photon torpedoes (the script dates from Phase II). Taylor came on and changed the design, making that feature much wider, but as two indistinct glowing trapezoids. Probert came up with the final dual square tube design. The Excelsior actually is closer to his alternates with the round opening.

Hey, I'm just going off this interview with Probert

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

The interesting thing about the photon torpedo tubes is that their distinctive design is a historical quirk left over from the time the Enterprise refit was designed. By the time the Excelsior first appears in Star Trek III it had been definitively established that photon torpedoes were physical objects that were launched through linear accelerator tubes, but at the time the Constitution refit was being designed for The Motion Picture Andrew Probert believed photon torpedoes to be forcefield-enclosed blobs of warp plasma spun off from the warp core itself by those glowing red emitters – kind of making them the "megaphaser cannons" of their day. The Miranda as a kitbash of the Constitution refit followed the same design cues, but almost no other class of starship has glowing photon torpedo launchers – the only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Intrepid.

*Edited for spelling.

This sort of relates to what I was saying about the "ribbing" at first. There is a dark area surrounding the torpedo bay on the Enterprise refit as seen from the front; the Reliant has similar darkened details around the torpedo bay doors in the pod, and even the Galaxy-class has something similar, around the sides. On the Excelsior, the entire neck has the vents. That seems to suggest that the openings in the neck would be torpedo bays, like I said, bu the effects do not depict it that way. This is actually one of the reasons I asked about whether the poster was going to have two warp cores, or intermix shafts, or whatever term was chosen in the neck, since the Excelsior has all that "ribbing" on it's neck.

Also the Ambassador has this ribbing, but it is not the entire neck this time. I think AMT model kit instructions for the Excelsior call the neck an impulse engine, and the Ambassador does have an engine in its neck, but I'm not convinced that is the location of impulse engines on the Excelsior.

 

[Vale]

I think AMT model kit instructions for the Excelsior call the neck an impulse engine, and the Ambassador does have an engine in its neck, but I'm not convinced that is the location of impulse engines on the Excelsior.

Indeed not, the Excelsior's impulse engines are the prominent red exhausts at the back of the saucer above the neck:

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

Indeed not, the Excelsior's impulse engines are the prominent red exhausts at the back of the saucer above the neck:

It does make me wonder the Excelsior has a way to use impulse engines for secondary hull if it ever had to separate in an emergency.

 

[Vale]

It does make me wonder the Excelsior has a way to use impulse engines for secondary hull if it ever had to separate in an emergency.

Saucer separation for a 23rd century ship was essentially what they did instead of ejecting the warp core. You aren't going to be staying aboard the secondary hull.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

Saucer separation for a 23rd century ship was essentially what they did instead of ejecting the warp core. You aren't going to be staying aboard the secondary hull.

I was under the impression that either half of the ship could be a lifeboat. On the other hand, the 3-year mission and large amounts of open space suggest that it may accommodate more people with fewer supplies. The Ambassador would be a more "filled-out" version of the Excelsior.

 

[yotsuya]

Well... quite a lot changes, depending on if it's a matter/antimatter charge held together by a forcefield, or an actual automated missile. Being able to steer it after firing it for one thing. The explosive yield and mechanism are the same but there's a lot of functional difference between "belching high-energy warp plasma" and "accelerating little smart bombs with engines".

No, not much changes. Either way it was called a torpedo. That really does imply a container and not just pure energy or plasma.

Hey, I'm just going off this interview with Probert

And I'm going off several interviews and books with Taylor, Olsen, and others and Taylor and Probert's drawings. David Kimble basically gave Probert sole credit for a design that he only worked on the final exterior details. Probert did do the rec deck and I think her did the new Engineering set and the cargo and hanger. But the exterior was 90% done (painted and even decals) by the time Probert had any input. He did propose redesigning the impulse engines, but they left them as Taylor designed them. And my inclusion of Jefferies is based on examining the drawings of Jefferies revised Phase II and Taylor's early refit. And I'd point out that on the TMP refit, everyone seems to want to claim sole credit when it was very much a joint effort over the years it took to go from Jefferies earliest drawings on the set of Little House on the Prairie to The final changes when the bridge was damage and had to be replaced and they took the opportunity to increase the detailing on the replacement.

 

[Tomalak]

I was under the impression that either half of the ship could be a lifeboat. On the other hand, the 3-year mission and large amounts of open space suggest that it may accommodate more people with fewer supplies. The Ambassador would be a more "filled-out" version of the Excelsior.

You're probably not going to want to use the half of the ship full of antimatter as the lifeboat. There's much less in the saucer that can go boom.

Though interestingly the Enterprise-B MSD calls out a battle bridge at the top of the neck like on the Enterprise-D. I suspect that's intended as the equivalent of auxiliary control or a CIC if the main bridge is destroyed, rather than the bridge of a separate spacecraft.

 

[yotsuya]

One of the critical omissions is an impulse engine. While we did see the Enterprise a time or two maneuver on warp drive, that is unusual. However, I can see where if it is possible, that the engineering hull with the warp drive could be used as a lifeboat and could maneuver at warp drive. This goes back to Franz Joseph's plans and has been carried forward to most newer ships. They have 3 CNC's. The main bridge, auxiliary control, and a secondary hull bridge for separation (aka the battle bridge on 1701-D).

I think that it has to be possible to maneuver a ship with only the warp drive and the intent of separation is that either side can escape to safety. So the old 1701 up through the Ambassador, none of which have multiple impulse engines, have to all have the ability for both sections to operate independently. I see those neck weapons as proof of that. While in reality they are just greebles on the model, their most likely function is as a weapon and if the ship separates, it creates a very powerful forward battery in combat for that portion of the ship.

 

[Vale]

Per Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise:
• The TOS configuration of the Constitution-class used the impulse drive for sublight propulsion exclusively, and the propulsive power at warp came from the nacelles, which both generated a warp field and provided thrust to reach FTL speeds through the rear vents of the nacelles.
• The TMP configuration of the Constitution-class changed this system completely, by routing all propulsive power through the saucer's impulse engine for both sublight and warp travel – which is why the impulse engine is now attached to the warp core. The nacelles now only generate the warp field and no propulsive effects.
• The TOS configuration could use either the saucer or the secondary hull as a lifeboat by ditching the other half of the ship, since both had independent propulsive systems, computer cores, and crew facilities.
• The TMP configuration cannot do this, because the secondary hull has no independent propulsion, computer core, or crew facilities. Once the ship separates the secondary hull becomes inoperative.
• Neither the TOS nor TMP configurations could reconnect themselves automatically.

Now, your mileage may vary on how "real" this is – both MSGttE and Franz Joseph's blueprints are wildly at odds with our current understanding of how starships in general and warp drive in particular work. But just as the FJ blueprints indicate the warp drive nacelles are completely self-contained engine units with no warp core in the main body of the ship as per Matt Jeffries' original intent, and MSGttE was extrapolated from the production team's own notes on the ship's internal layout and new technology, they are a time capsule of how these things were intended to work at the time by the then production teams responsible for making the franchise.

 

[yotsuya]

Per Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise:
• The TOS configuration of the Constitution-class used the impulse drive for sublight propulsion exclusively, and the propulsive power at warp came from the nacelles, which both generated a warp field and provided thrust to reach FTL speeds through the rear vents of the nacelles.
• The TMP configuration of the Constitution-class changed this system completely, by routing all propulsive power through the saucer's impulse engine for both sublight and warp travel – which is why the impulse engine is now attached to the warp core. The nacelles now only generate the warp field and no propulsive effects.
• The TOS configuration could use either the saucer or the secondary hull as a lifeboat by ditching the other half of the ship, since both had independent propulsive systems, computer cores, and crew facilities.
• The TMP configuration cannot do this, because the secondary hull has no independent propulsion, computer core, or crew facilities. Once the ship separates the secondary hull becomes inoperative.
• Neither the TOS nor TMP configurations could reconnect themselves automatically.

Now, your mileage may vary on how "real" this is – both MSGttE and Franz Joseph's blueprints are wildly at odds with our current understanding of how starships in general and warp drive in particular work. But just as the FJ blueprints indicate the warp drive nacelles are completely self-contained engine units with no warp core in the main body of the ship as per Matt Jeffries' original intent, and MSGttE was extrapolated from the production team's own notes on the ship's internal layout and new technology, they are a time capsule of how these things were intended to work at the time by the then production teams responsible for making the franchise.

Both are based on canon snd profuction notes, but slso a good deal of imagination by their respective authors. Johnson clsims 1701-A had trsnswarp drive and altered the graphics when thr originals gad nothing about that. So both sources mske many dubious claims. That is why I base my statements first on canon and then what logically fits with that. The larger canon of what has come after adds to the picture. In TOS the Enterprise pivots uding warp power. In TOS, the movies and beyond, the ships have main, aux, and battery power. The Ambassador class lacks impulse engines on the saucer. Put all the pieces together and it means that the ships must be able to operate as two separate units.

 

[Vale]

...Or the original interpretation is correct, saucer separation was an early alternative to warp core ejection before cores were small/stable enough for it, it was only intended as a last ditch survival procedure when the ship was in imminent danger of destruction per TOS: "The Apple" (why would Kirk instruct Scotty to ditch the warp drive and keep the saucer if the secondary hull could function independently and had superior capabilities?), and it only becomes a procedure resulting in two independent operational vehicles by the mid- to late-24th century.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

One of the critical omissions is an impulse engine. While we did see the Enterprise a time or two maneuver on warp drive, that is unusual. However, I can see where if it is possible, that the engineering hull with the warp drive could be used as a lifeboat and could maneuver at warp drive. This goes back to Franz Joseph's plans and has been carried forward to most newer ships. They have 3 CNC's. The main bridge, auxiliary control, and a secondary hull bridge for separation (aka the battle bridge on 1701-D).

I think that it has to be possible to maneuver a ship with only the warp drive and the intent of separation is that either side can escape to safety. So the old 1701 up through the Ambassador, none of which have multiple impulse engines, have to all have the ability for both sections to operate independently. I see those neck weapons as proof of that. While in reality they are just greebles on the model, their most likely function is as a weapon and if the ship separates, it creates a very powerful forward battery in combat for that portion of the ship.

Reading this, it occurs to me that the Enterprise-D is the first one to be shown confirmed with Impulse Engines in both places. Perhaps that is part of how reconnecting the saucer was deemed feasible, since both sections now have reliable fast sub-light maneuverability.

Assuming that any ship older than the Galaxy class can, or cannot, use either section of the ship as a lifeboat, then either the secondary hull of the Constitution and refit version has to use warp drive to escape, or the secondary hull cannot work separated from the saucer and cannot serve as lifeboat. The Ambassador seems an odd situation, since the Impulse engine are in the secondary hull, would the saucer then be unable to flee once separated?

I have two possible fixes for this matter. First, that we simple accept the lack of saucer impulse engines on the Ambassador model as an error and assume that it has either Excelsior or Enterprise-B style impulse engines; in SD the reflection of the bussard scoops on the saucer is intense enough to imagine impulse engines in the area where the reflections turn the saucer red. Secondly, since the Ambassador is the first ship with such a huge saucer, we could assume that the relativistic component the impulse engines on the Galaxy had were not yet invented, and engineers decided that no impulse engine then in existence could move the saucer fast enough, and so did not include them.

I prefer the idea that a ship has either an "auxiliary control" or a "battle bridge" and not both (since both are pretty much the same thing). Two command centers is enough, since the ship could be commanded from engineering. That is to say, at least on the Constitution, movie refit, and Excelsior ships, there apparently is an engine room in the secondary hull near a main reactor, and one in the saucer near the impulse engines (or impulse deflection crystal),so one "bridge" for each section should be enough. As to why the Enterprise-B would have a "battle bridge," my only guess is that someone thought it could separate and reconnect. Maybe it could reconnect itself, but not in any way that would be acceptable unless the ship were in extreme circumstances?

• Neither the TOS nor TMP configurations could reconnect themselves

I don't know that I think engineers would get rid of the ability for the secondary hull to work as lifeboat, but, like I said above, it might be that the impulse engines on both sections are part of why this maneuver is more routine on the Galaxy-class. Were the saucer impulse engines ever shown lit up on the Enterprise-D, maybe in the Generations movie? In other words, is there anything onscreen that confirms they are impulse engines like the tech manual would claim?

 

[yotsuya]

...Or the original interpretation is correct, saucer separation was an early alternative to warp core ejection before cores were small/stable enough for it, it was only intended as a last ditch survival procedure when the ship was in imminent danger of destruction per TOS: "The Apple" (why would Kirk instruct Scotty to ditch the warp drive and keep the saucer if the secondary hull could function independently and had superior capabilities?), and it only becomes a procedure resulting in two independent operational vehicles by the mid- to late-24th century.

In TOS, Kirk says that when the ship is caught in a beam and can't escape. By separating he hopes that the beam will break from the saucer so it can escape. It is not the same as ejecting the warp core (which we first get a glimmer of in That Which Survives - in fact that episode is the birth of the entire later warp core concept).

 

[yotsuya]

Reading this, it occurs to me that the Enterprise-D is the first one to be shown confirmed with Impulse Engines in both places. Perhaps that is part of how reconnecting the saucer was deemed feasible, since both sections now have reliable fast sub-light maneuverability.

Assuming that any ship older than the Galaxy class can, or cannot, use either section of the ship as a lifeboat, then either the secondary hull of the Constitution and refit version has to use warp drive to escape, or the secondary hull cannot work separated from the saucer and cannot serve as lifeboat. The Ambassador seems an odd situation, since the Impulse engine are in the secondary hull, would the saucer then be unable to flee once separated?

I have two possible fixes for this matter. First, that we simple accept the lack of saucer impulse engines on the Ambassador model as an error and assume that it has either Excelsior or Enterprise-B style impulse engines; in SD the reflection of the bussard scoops on the saucer is intense enough to imagine impulse engines in the area where the reflections turn the saucer red. Secondly, since the Ambassador is the first ship with such a huge saucer, we could assume that the relativistic component the impulse engines on the Galaxy had were not yet invented, and engineers decided that no impulse engine then in existence could move the saucer fast enough, and so did not include them.

I prefer the idea that a ship has either an "auxiliary control" or a "battle bridge" and not both (since both are pretty much the same thing). Two command centers is enough, since the ship could be commanded from engineering. That is to say, at least on the Constitution, movie refit, and Excelsior ships, there apparently is an engine room in the secondary hull near a main reactor, and one in the saucer near the impulse engines (or impulse deflection crystal),so one "bridge" for each section should be enough. As to why the Enterprise-B would have a "battle bridge," my only guess is that someone thought it could separate and reconnect. Maybe it could reconnect itself, but not in any way that would be acceptable unless the ship were in extreme circumstances?



I don't know that I think engineers would get rid of the ability for the secondary hull to work as lifeboat, but, like I said above, it might be that the impulse engines on both sections are part of why this maneuver is more routine on the Galaxy-class. Were the saucer impulse engines ever shown lit up on the Enterprise-D, maybe in the Generations movie? In other words, is there anything onscreen that confirms they are impulse engines like the tech manual would claim?

My take on the separation prior to the Galaxy class (and other later ships) is that prior to that they used some sort of hard disconnect. Explosive bolts, burned through connections, or some other form of separation that your average Engineering team could not fix in the field. Scotty is anything but average so he likely could manage such a feat should the need arise (as in Star Trek Continues). The Excelsior has a large enough area in the neck that it might have a more forgiving reconnect process, though doubtfully as automated as the Galaxy Class.

But I really see the separation as a chance for the saucer to get away (either from an imminent destruction of the warp core or some overwhelming attack). We don't see this in Star Trek II because they need warp drive to outrun the genesis effect and the saucer on its own could never do that. The TOS ship is very lightly armed when the engineering section is on its own so that one seems more like a dire emergency. But that ship we know can maneuver on warp power alone.

 

[Vale]

Were the saucer impulse engines ever shown lit up on the Enterprise-D, maybe in the Generations movie? In other words, is there anything onscreen that confirms they are impulse engines like the tech manual would claim?

Whenever the saucer was separated, yes.

 

[Vale]

My take on the separation prior to the Galaxy class (and other later ships) is that prior to that they used some sort of hard disconnect. Explosive bolts, burned through connections, or some other form of separation that your average Engineering team could not fix in the field. Scotty is anything but average so he likely could manage such a feat should the need arise (as in Star Trek Continues). The Excelsior has a large enough area in the neck that it might have a more forgiving reconnect process, though doubtfully as automated as the Galaxy Class.

There's quite a difference between being a "miracle worker" when it comes to things you can fix with your hands, and welding two halves of a starship back together in such a way that it can withstand the stresses of manoeuvring and entering warp.

Star Trek Continues is just fanfic.

In TOS, Kirk says that when the ship is caught in a beam and can't escape. By separating he hopes that the beam will break from the saucer so it can escape. It is not the same as ejecting the warp core (which we first get a glimmer of in That Which Survives - in fact that episode is the birth of the entire later warp core concept).

But I really see the separation as a chance for the saucer to get away (either from an imminent destruction of the warp core or some overwhelming attack). We don't see this in Star Trek II because they need warp drive to outrun the genesis effect and the saucer on its own could never do that. The TOS ship is very lightly armed when the engineering section is on its own so that one seems more like a dire emergency. But that ship we know can maneuver on warp power alone.

In each case here you're suggesting that the secondary hull is fully functional in its own right after separation, yet missing the fact that were that the case the secondary hull having warp drive would make it by far the preferable escape solution over the saucer.

Incidentally, the intent in TOS: "That Which Survives" is that the ship was rigged to eject its antimatter storage pods rather than the warp core. Which is something also included in Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, and which is also mentioned in the TNG Technical Manual – though this is never mentioned again on screen, even when it would be a viable alternative to warp core ejection failing yet again.

Thinking about it, saucer separation should have been a perfectly viable solution in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. We know from the earlier Genesis demonstration video that the effect takes approximately 20 seconds to completely engulf the surface of a planet; assuming that planet is Earth-sized, that suggests the Genesis effect has a propagation speed of approximately 1000km/s, far below full impulse's top speed of around 75,000km/s. As long as you could muster 2% of impulse power you'd be fine. In fact why separate at all, the Enterprise wasn't in imminent danger of blowing itself up, its warp drive was just offline. Just fire up the impulse drive backup reactors and coast to safety.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

We don't see this in Star Trek II because they need warp drive to outrun the genesis effect and the saucer on its own could never do that.

Not to mention that, in what may be the strongest argument for Engineering in the secondary hull in TOS, the Constellation is not separated, despite most/all the "bridge" (saucer) being destroyed, because the impulse engines are in the saucer, but the habitable part of the ship is the secondary hull. Somehow, that avoided actually showing a separated ship in TOS.

I actually had never considered a separation in Star Trek II; I guess it never crossed my mind because of the need for warp drive, like you said.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

antimatter storage pods

In the case of TOS, this term might mean nacelles or the secondary hull, rather than discreet tanks within the ship, like those in TNG.