Has anyone come up with a definitive answer for how the shuttlebay miniature shots would fit assuming a full-scale, 29-foot shuttle (whose exterior according to Gary Kerr was built at 3/4 scale or 22 feet)?
The Excelsior - uncovering the design
- Thread starter yotsuya
- Start date
Well, that is belongs in another area, but I will answer it anyway. It is an assumption that the exterior was built to a smaller scale. My take is that the interior was build oversize so they could film in it and the exterior is the correct size. I have not seen anything to indicate that the exterior was built with the intention of being at a scale. The exterior was built to fit in the 947' Enterprise. A 22 foot shuttle fits, a 29 foot shuttle does not. So I will disagree with Gary on this one. Also, the 22 foot size fits with what we see in Star Trek V. That shuttle was built with a more realistic interior and is also designed to fit the canon scale of the 1701-A. Just as with the Excelsior, the "executive" shuttle is way oversized compared to the miniature that sits in the lower hanger in Star Trek VI. And in coming to this conclusion I compared the size to the largest passenger van that Ford made a few years ago.
Last edited:
At the approx. 540 meters the deflector dishes would be the same size (for the TMP Enterprise and the Excelsior), if I recall. So to my perception first watching the movies, that would be about the size it seemed to me that it was, but I understand why you are going with 467 meters now that I see your deck layouts. What would the Excelsiors size be from the DS9 technical manual? (I read that it shows ships in a comparison chart that would make them different sizes than other sources.)
What’s wrong with putting Deck 15 exactly where we see it in Nexus damage, extrapolating the remaining few decks below, then counting up to the bridge so the window rows make sense? Has that been done independent of any historical cross-sections?
Given that there are so many inconsistencies in deck references throughout Star Trek, there is no impetus to place deck 15 where they say it is. It makes more sense to figure out how many decks are in the ship and figure out what deck it should be. One of the biggest problems with the deck designation is when they show the decks open to space. They show the spacing and given that spacing, there is no way for that to be deck 15.
The area shown is given 3 decks of 8 foot each. With the deck thickness that is something like 26 feet. To accommodate that the ship would have to be 690 meters long. So once again the FX team and the writers were not on the same page and what we see and hear on screen don't line up. The larger you make the ship the less likely this incident can be on Deck 15. At that size it would be about deck 28 or more.
But one nice thing about this shot is that it shows some of the construction. Decks, ribs, plating, exactly what I envision. The decks are thin and there isn't a mandatory crawlspace between them. And 8 foot ceilings, thanks to the figures shown.
Last edited:
Skin thickness is quite thin, too, looks to be less than 6 inches thick...
The hardest part of this whole process was working from photos and trying to interpret how that would translate to the orthographic views. And how that in turn would turn back into a 3D image. And when someone takes your drawings and puts them in 3D and you can see how you did...
Not every deck has to be the same height.
I believed I saw something where the EntD saucer deck height was 4 meters and the eng hull was 3.5 meters
And a crawl space doesnt have to be between decks. There are plenty of areas where you couldn't fit a full deck, so a crawlway would run parralel to the decks. Some could be above or below due to the curvature of the hull.
I believed I saw something where the EntD saucer deck height was 4 meters and the eng hull was 3.5 meters
And a crawl space doesnt have to be between decks. There are plenty of areas where you couldn't fit a full deck, so a crawlway would run parralel to the decks. Some could be above or below due to the curvature of the hull.
I draw a line between Ent B and Ent C. Ent B was designed with the movie era configuration. Just under 3 meters per deck in the saucer - other decks higher as space and need allows. Ent C is designed in the TNG and on configuration. So more internal space, more crawlways, etc. None of that applies to the Excelsior class as it is a movie era design.
I still prefer the Excelsior Refit =D
R
RichT
Guest
Tangential to the thread I know, but does anyone else get the feeling that there should be a missing link of sorts between the Excelsior class and the Ambassador class? There seems to have been a real paradigm shift in technologies between those two generations, much more so than there were between any other consecutive starship generations that we've seen.
It's possible that the E-B lasted in service quite a long time, supported by evidence that the Excelsior class and its variants (Lakota) proved to be long-term workhorses, lasting well into the late 24th century, where there was hardly an Ambassador to be found by the time the Dominion War came along. They may have kept the same space frame and skin, but they no doubt had internal component improvements deployed in the intervening time.
FWIW, if the Probert Ambassador had been used, I suspect that technology gap would have been more apparent-looking. What we wound up getting was probably a better compromise between the E-B and E-D.
I personally wish we saw Sternbach's concept of the Pegasus realized. Based off this MSD he did back then:
Sadly, budget considerations demanded they repurpose an Oberth...again...
R
RichT
Guest
Yes, I'd arrived at a similar conclusion – that, in-universe, the Enterprise-B lasted so long that her replacement skipped a tech generation. Admittedly we don't see anything that looks intermittent between Excelsior and Ambassador even amongst those oddball Wolf 359 ships and other barely-glimpsed 24th century ships, though I concede this is hardly definitive.
I've often said that the Probert Ambassador should have been the Enterprise-D, never mind the Enterprise-C
I personally wish we saw Sternbach's concept of the Pegasus realized. Based off this MSD he did back then:
Sadly, budget considerations demanded they repurpose an Oberth...again...
That's interesting, I've never seen that before! Clear "previous generation Nebula equivalent" design there! Though I had read that the original plan was for the Pegasus to be a Cheyenne class, hence why the displays in main engineering show four nacelles? No reason they couldn't have changed their minds twice, of course. At least it wasn't a Miranda...
Got to disagree here. The Probert design was literally made by taking a drawing of the Excelsior and the Enterprise-D and then connecting the features between the two ships, leaving an interpolated design. There almost could not be any full generation of starship between the Excelsior and Ambassador, given the "real-life" design approach.
As I often have said, in my view, the Ambassador does not represent a separate generation of starship; but instead both the Enterprise-B style and Ambassador style are uprated versions of the Excelsior generation. NOT refits in the strict sense, as I don't see it being that an Excelsior could go into dock and come out an Ambassador. However, there are things like the extra long aft undercut on the Excelsior, later more filled out in the Ambassador, which suggest to me that sometimes a ship of the Excelsior generation would be built with these added features instead. That would also explain why there are not many Ambassador's seen on the show.
I like the idea that the Ambassador-class ships were built for very long term exploratory missions and of the 10 or 20 built, most of them are still way out there finding new stuff. I picture them being way out beyond the cutting edge, possibly about as well equipped for science as a Galaxy but perhaps less well rounded for combat and everything else. Out for 20+ year missions with no plan to return in the middle. We don't see many of them because most are still on their way back.
Anyhow, it's an interesting idea.
--Alex
Anyhow, it's an interesting idea.
--Alex
Wow... love the comments.
Here is my take and personal canon for the events between Capt. Harriman and Capt. Garrett.
First, we have seen in TNG and beyond that the Excelsior is still the workhorse of Starfleet. They are everywhere. New hulls, old hulls, and in between. They were such an oustanding design that they just kept making them. No need to upgrade the major systems, just the minor systems. The Hood in Encounter at Farpoint is one of the oldest Excelsior Class ships we see, NCC-2541, followed by Repulse, NCC-2544. 80 year old ships still in service. The login screen of one of my secondary computers is of the USS Constituion taken in 1881 as she returned from her final voyage. 84 years in service at that point. The USS Enterprise, CVN-65 served for 50 years. So long serving ships are not unusual. And where you have an entire class that has proven itself (although the real reason was the cheap reuse of models), it would continue to serve for a long time.
Jump to the Ambassador class. Two things. We have Sternbach's design which we see on screen and Probert's that we see on the past Enterprise wall. We know from how the Excelsior looks that the wall has a mistake, showing a standard Excelsior Class instead of the modified version we see in Generations. So that could be the reason for that. But I have other ideas. I think Probert's Ambassador Class (which was actually an early draft of the Enterprise D, which is why the full color painting was made) was the original design. It is much larger than the Excelsior Class. It was supposed to be the replacement. But it was not as successful and did not replace the Excelsior. So it got a refit design. Whether Enterprise C was built in the original configuration and refit or built to the refit specifications I don't have an answer for.
Personally I think Enterprise B was a one off ship. It was experimental and it, unlike the actual Excelsior Class design, was largely a failure and no other ships like it were built. Eventually it was retired and replaced with Enterprise C. It was placed in reserve and when the Dominion War started, they pulled it out, gave it a new name and registry, and put it back to work.
Starfleet is full of craft we rarely see. It wasn't until the TNG and succeeding FX teams started kit bashing that we started to get some variety in design. But it goes back to Franz Joseph, FASA and Starfleet Battles. We have the variety in kit bashing that we see in those tie-in products. So during the dark years between Generations and Encounter at Farpoint there would be a lot of ships designs that would come and go that we would never have seen. It is in those more ephemeral designs that the internal design differences occurred. The deck height increased, more service ducts were added, technology changed. Remember, that the US Navy underwent a huge redesign program a number of years ago where they refit the interiors of a great many ships, including USS Enterprise CVN-65. They did things like lower the watertight doors to deck level and a bunch of other changes. Starfleet would have done that to its existing ships to update the technology and comfort level. It would not impact Jefferies tubes or other major structural aspects. We see this in TMP with the refit Enterprise. She was gutted and her exterior changed, but internally it wasn't so different. The decks hadn't moved.
In reality there isn't much of a contrast between TMP, TNG, and Voyager. They are the same sets built for Star Trek Phase II in 1978, converted to TMP and used through TVH before being modified for TNG. Voyager used the same sets but did a total facelift. The TMP built angled corridor was stripped back to the Phase II corridor and redone for Voyager. A new look, but the same structure behind it. Enterprise had to build new. Fitting for a setting 200 years earlier. But that gives us 4 distinct looks. Enterprise, TOS, TMP-TNG, and Voyager.
So we have different design elements at different levels. We have the exterior, the inner structure, and the inner skin. We have design paradigms for each. Each changes over time. The inner structure is the same from TOS To TMP, but changes sometime before TNG. The exterior changes before and after TOS, after Generations (Enterprise B), and again after TNG.
The Excelsior Class bridges the gap in several of these. It was the replacement to the Constitution Class (there was an Enterprise from 2245 to 2293, nearly 50 years), it was of the movie era deign. It was done so well it stayed in service for about a century. My guess is it would be replaced by the Intrepid class in its role. The Amabassador Class comes along and fills a role for a larger ship. Very successfully, but in many roles the Excelsior class was unmatched and was already around in such numbers that it stayed. In an attempt to make the Amabassdor class fit a wider range of roles, they did a refit. But the next design was in the works and the Galaxy Class replaced the Ambassador in the elite roles. The Intrepid class is slightly more petite than the Excelsior Class, but can carry out the same mission, finally allowing the old girl to be retired, though newer built ships would continue to serve for quite some time.
Basically because they reused the model so much they took an outdated design and turned it into the most successful ship design in Trek history. Fun how things work out like that.
Here is my take and personal canon for the events between Capt. Harriman and Capt. Garrett.
First, we have seen in TNG and beyond that the Excelsior is still the workhorse of Starfleet. They are everywhere. New hulls, old hulls, and in between. They were such an oustanding design that they just kept making them. No need to upgrade the major systems, just the minor systems. The Hood in Encounter at Farpoint is one of the oldest Excelsior Class ships we see, NCC-2541, followed by Repulse, NCC-2544. 80 year old ships still in service. The login screen of one of my secondary computers is of the USS Constituion taken in 1881 as she returned from her final voyage. 84 years in service at that point. The USS Enterprise, CVN-65 served for 50 years. So long serving ships are not unusual. And where you have an entire class that has proven itself (although the real reason was the cheap reuse of models), it would continue to serve for a long time.
Jump to the Ambassador class. Two things. We have Sternbach's design which we see on screen and Probert's that we see on the past Enterprise wall. We know from how the Excelsior looks that the wall has a mistake, showing a standard Excelsior Class instead of the modified version we see in Generations. So that could be the reason for that. But I have other ideas. I think Probert's Ambassador Class (which was actually an early draft of the Enterprise D, which is why the full color painting was made) was the original design. It is much larger than the Excelsior Class. It was supposed to be the replacement. But it was not as successful and did not replace the Excelsior. So it got a refit design. Whether Enterprise C was built in the original configuration and refit or built to the refit specifications I don't have an answer for.
Personally I think Enterprise B was a one off ship. It was experimental and it, unlike the actual Excelsior Class design, was largely a failure and no other ships like it were built. Eventually it was retired and replaced with Enterprise C. It was placed in reserve and when the Dominion War started, they pulled it out, gave it a new name and registry, and put it back to work.
Starfleet is full of craft we rarely see. It wasn't until the TNG and succeeding FX teams started kit bashing that we started to get some variety in design. But it goes back to Franz Joseph, FASA and Starfleet Battles. We have the variety in kit bashing that we see in those tie-in products. So during the dark years between Generations and Encounter at Farpoint there would be a lot of ships designs that would come and go that we would never have seen. It is in those more ephemeral designs that the internal design differences occurred. The deck height increased, more service ducts were added, technology changed. Remember, that the US Navy underwent a huge redesign program a number of years ago where they refit the interiors of a great many ships, including USS Enterprise CVN-65. They did things like lower the watertight doors to deck level and a bunch of other changes. Starfleet would have done that to its existing ships to update the technology and comfort level. It would not impact Jefferies tubes or other major structural aspects. We see this in TMP with the refit Enterprise. She was gutted and her exterior changed, but internally it wasn't so different. The decks hadn't moved.
In reality there isn't much of a contrast between TMP, TNG, and Voyager. They are the same sets built for Star Trek Phase II in 1978, converted to TMP and used through TVH before being modified for TNG. Voyager used the same sets but did a total facelift. The TMP built angled corridor was stripped back to the Phase II corridor and redone for Voyager. A new look, but the same structure behind it. Enterprise had to build new. Fitting for a setting 200 years earlier. But that gives us 4 distinct looks. Enterprise, TOS, TMP-TNG, and Voyager.
So we have different design elements at different levels. We have the exterior, the inner structure, and the inner skin. We have design paradigms for each. Each changes over time. The inner structure is the same from TOS To TMP, but changes sometime before TNG. The exterior changes before and after TOS, after Generations (Enterprise B), and again after TNG.
The Excelsior Class bridges the gap in several of these. It was the replacement to the Constitution Class (there was an Enterprise from 2245 to 2293, nearly 50 years), it was of the movie era deign. It was done so well it stayed in service for about a century. My guess is it would be replaced by the Intrepid class in its role. The Amabassador Class comes along and fills a role for a larger ship. Very successfully, but in many roles the Excelsior class was unmatched and was already around in such numbers that it stayed. In an attempt to make the Amabassdor class fit a wider range of roles, they did a refit. But the next design was in the works and the Galaxy Class replaced the Ambassador in the elite roles. The Intrepid class is slightly more petite than the Excelsior Class, but can carry out the same mission, finally allowing the old girl to be retired, though newer built ships would continue to serve for quite some time.
Basically because they reused the model so much they took an outdated design and turned it into the most successful ship design in Trek history. Fun how things work out like that.
Similar threads
