The Excelsior - uncovering the design

[Mytran]

We all have thoughts. The NX-01 is where my thoughts took flight. All the saucers through the movie era don't really have a usable deck on the lower deck at the edge. So I thought this was an ideal place for sensors and science equipment. They just made the hull cover them for protection. Franz Joseph noted several places where the hull was designed to allow signals to pass through easily so I just put the two together and figured that ring is either the lower part of something accessed from above or packed with equipment that might occasionally need service but that scans through the hull.

Good thoughts.
Incidentally I didn't mean to be mysterious, I just didn't have time to complete my post this morning!

Basically, I postulate that the first wave of Starship (AKA Constitution) Class ships had much thinner saucers., about one deck thick. However, as they achieved higher and higher speeds the outer half of the saucers began to fracture. The overall shape was still fine for optimal warp geometry, it just needed to be stronger - so an array of structural integrity boosters was installed around the rim. These were in turn covered up by standard hull plating, which was blended into the existing shape of the hull.
The atmospheric aerodynamics of a separated saucer were just a bonus!
Future builds of this class simply retained what worked.

 

[yotsuya]

Good thoughts.
Incidentally I didn't mean to be mysterious, I just didn't have time to complete my post this morning!

Basically, I postulate that the first wave of Starship (AKA Constitution) Class ships had much thinner saucers., about one deck thick. However, as they achieved higher and higher speeds the outer half of the saucers began to fracture. The overall shape was still fine for optimal warp geometry, it just needed to be stronger - so an array of structural integrity boosters was installed around the rim. These were in turn covered up by standard hull plating, which was blended into the existing shape of the hull.
The atmospheric aerodynamics of a separated saucer were just a bonus!
Future builds of this class simply retained what worked.

That is logical. Makes sense to me. I was just comparing it to the NX (which has a 1 deck thick edge) and trying to think of a reason for the design change that fit with the undercut.

 

[Peregrinus]

And there's also Matt's early section view, which predated the building of the filming miniature, that show the lower portion of the saucer rim having a beveled edge that ended up not being on the filming miniature.

Those two outer compartments are a good candidate for sensors or machinery. Everything between those and the corridor wouldn't be there (or, at least, nowhere near full ceiling height).

 

[publiusr]

I might have a collider coil a long the rim of the saucer. Maybe a sump or fluid handling.

 

[publiusr]

I don't know if I have asked this before---but is there a smaller deflector assembly or something in some drawings of Excelsiors belly?

 

[yotsuya]

Not any I've seen.

 

[CaptChris42]

That's been my interpretation. Pretty much any Excelsior we didn't see with our own two eyes could be an Excelsior II (or an Excelsior Ib, for that matter), especially the ones in with registries higher than 42000.* Heck, forget about the illegible "Measure of a Man" computer screen and assume the Excelsior mentioned in "Interface" was the Ex-2 class-ship.

Checking MA, likely candidates for Excelsior IIs that were there all along are the Charleston (NCC-42285) and... wow, that's it. More if you count ones whose class and registries only came from the Encyclopedia or BTS ship-sheets. The Archer (NCC-44278), Al-Batani (NCC-42995), Grissom (NCC-42857), and, let's throw in Sarek (no registry, but it would've had to have been commissioned in the late 2360s at the earliest, and while the three canon Ex-2s were have are all NCC-420##, it seems unlikely they would've just built fourteen or fewer of them then switched back to the old model, so it would make sense for there to be ones with much higher registries than those).

*Though, a lot of 42000+ Excelsiors were seen on-screen, so it's possible both classes were still in production at the same time for a while. Which is wacky, but is it any more wacky than registry numbers leaping backwards or forwards by the thousands and occasionally tens of thousands? Maybe in Vulcan and Andorian, the Excelsior I is translated in the sense of "higher," and Excelsior II is translated as "packing material," or vice-versa, so it's less confusing.

I assume they got commissioned in a number of 'spurts' and batches. With the majority of the 42000 to 45000 ones being launched in the 2330s, maybe? (like with the USS Hokkaido and the last run of Renaissance class ships) Still, we know registries do not match one to one with commissioning order, always.

Also, what sources confirmed USS Sarek as an Excelsior? Beta, Alpha, or otherwise?

And I'll have more to say on that 'Measure of a Man' screen, shortly, too...

 

[David cgc]

Also, what sources confirmed USS Sarek as an Excelsior? Beta, Alpha, or otherwise?

From the MA page, "According to StarTrek.com and Star Trek Scene It?, the Sarek was an Excelsior-class starship."

 

[yotsuya]

That's been my interpretation. Pretty much any Excelsior we didn't see with our own two eyes could be an Excelsior II (or an Excelsior Ib, for that matter), especially the ones in with registries higher than 42000.* Heck, forget about the illegible "Measure of a Man" computer screen and assume the Excelsior mentioned in "Interface" was the Ex-2 class-ship.

Checking MA, likely candidates for Excelsior IIs that were there all along are the Charleston (NCC-42285) and... wow, that's it. More if you count ones whose class and registries only came from the Encyclopedia or BTS ship-sheets. The Archer (NCC-44278), Al-Batani (NCC-42995), Grissom (NCC-42857), and, let's throw in Sarek (no registry, but it would've had to have been commissioned in the late 2360s at the earliest, and while the three canon Ex-2s we have are all NCC-420##, it seems unlikely they would've just built fourteen or fewer of them then switched back to the old model, so it would make sense for there to be ones with much higher registries than those).

*Though, a lot of 42000+ Excelsiors were seen on-screen, so it's possible both classes were still in production at the same time for a while. Which is wacky, but is it any more wacky than registry numbers leaping backwards or forwards by the thousands and occasionally tens of thousands? Maybe in Vulcan and Andorian, the Excelsior I is translated in the sense of "higher," and Excelsior II is translated as "packing material," or vice-versa, so it's less confusing.

The only thing I'd suggest is that we use Mk I, Mk II, and Mk III to refer to the 3 versions of the model. The Jein model (and its subsequent CG copy) was a variation on the Mk II and the differences are not easy to see on screen. Mk I is the original Star Trek III and season 1 and 2 of TNG. Mk II is the TUC version and the Melbourn and Jein's copy for Flashback. Mk III is the Ent B and Lakota. It was never used for any other ships that I am aware of. I don't even know of a use of the stock footages from its two appearances. I consider them the same ship renamed. Most of the ships are going to be Mk II, especially since most were during the Dominion War and were either Jein's model or it's CG copy.

 

[publiusr]

Any plans to draw Jein's model?

 

[Dukhat]

Wasn't the Hood both a Mk I (physical model) and a Mk II (CGI model)?

 

[Ithekro]

Upgraded for the Dominion War maybe?

 

[Dukhat]

Upgraded for the Dominion War maybe?

I guess that's as good a reason as any. Seems odd that it would take so long for that upgrade to happen, though.

 

[yotsuya]

Any plans to draw Jein's model?

No. Jein was trying to copy the studio model (according to Gary Kerr, he was working from photos - the few that ILM had) and the only two significant detail differences are the height of the secondary hull and the saucer grid (which impacts the RCS and phaser placement). So I consider those like TOS using the AMT kit or the 33 inch or swapping back and forth between pilot and series shots. I'm drawing the main studio models, not all the various ones. I don't have enough pictures of Jein's model in any case. Or I should say models because he made a number of unilluminated versions that he sold.

 

[137th Gebirg]

IIRC, the height of the 2H wasn't an issue, so much as the width of it. Eaglemoss' front-view schematics of the Jein-E vs the E-B (modded original) show the differences petty clearly. There were other small things but the 2H was the most obvious:



What I don't understand is why Jein didn't use the original NX-2000 build photos from TSFS, that clearly showed the proper 2H width. These would have been available at the time:

 

[Rekkert]

Width was certainly also an inssue, but the height of the secondary hull is the bigger one, notice how taller it is in relation to the neck on the original model. Also, both Eaglemoss models are terrible, they have details from both versions mixed lol

In another difference, I hate how short (front to back) the neck is on the 3 footer, there's a lot of overhang on the impulse engines which looks really bad in comparison to the 7.5 footer.

 

[publiusr]

It looks like the bridge is directly over the lower sensor dome there...I prefer that.

Other drawings have it back a bit--like the ENT-D bridge.

Also, the secondary hull is supposed to be more bowl shaped as viewed from the front--though it being "pinched" looks okay.

 

[yotsuya]

Those side view photos prove my point. It's the height of the secondary hull. The Eaglemoss schematics are way off. Don't trust them. And those were the photos that Greg Jein was going from. But those photos are full of perspective issues. It took a lot more photos for me to rectify all those issues, and those photos weren't available publicly until 2006 or later.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Aw, hell, I remember seeing those old photos going back to the olden days of Starlog, Cinefex and/or Cinefantastique. Can’t remember which one specifically, but they were certainly released to the public a lot earlier than 2006! In any case, Greg Jein was not “the public” and would have, at the very least, had access to production stills like those to get a good idea of how the original was built, even if he was unable to view it in-person to take proper measurements and source photos of his own, which seemed to be the case.

As for the narrowness of the Jein 2H, I agree that there is some perspective distortion with the PH going back to the nacelles, but that will not at all change the relative width of the 2H, since it’s amidships and will have the least amount of distortion. That’s just the way cameras work, either CG or IRL. One only needs to look at the many photos taken at the Christie’s auction where the miniatures (both of them) were sold off. The differences in the shapes of the 2H were very starkly visible. The poor “strong back” of the Jein model was also horribly warped (pun not intended), with the upper surface separating from the main body at the middle. The nacelles were sagging badly and I think the PH was also starting to tilt downward as well. Too much weight was imposed on the weak armature infrastructure (if it even had one). It was quite sad to see.

 

[blssdwlf]

I think I missed the post but what episode(s) does Jein's 2H appear in?