The Excelsior - uncovering the design

[publiusr]

The closest to the wall display Enterprise-C was Jeff Robb's Council class....scroll down here:
https://www.treknology.org/history3.htm
https://www.treknology.org/new/council-jef1.jpg


Yet perhaps most interestingly, new experimental approaches were taken with each cruiser's phaser banks: the Ambassador featured phaser array tracks placed to cover forward, port, starboard, and aft directions, while the Council placed twenty enlarged ball-turret emitters within coves upon two large rotating rings. Sections of the rings were interchangeable

That was an interesting concept and would make a nice toy.

 

[yotsuya]

@Peregrinus, a request. Can you do shorter posts that tackle only one or two subjects. It is a pain to reply to such a long post and edit out what I don't want to reply to.

So rather than quote, I'll just hit the topics.

Stardates:
Stardates seem to start shortly before Where No Man Has gone Before. They quickly go from 0xxx to 6xxx in just a few years. Someone realized this and they slow down over the next 20 years. But one question, just what is a startdate and what does it mean? That is never made clear, it is some way of dating things that relates to warp travel. I think it is safe to say that there was some major reset after the Enterprise's five year mission and the dates after that follow a different pace.

NCC Numbers:
They are no consecutive. Starfleet requests funding for different types of ships. Each type is given a range (not class, but type). Starfleet is free to do what they like once the registries are authorized. Sometimes they know they are going to build a large class of ships and reserve a large series of numbers, like the Constitution class. Other times they need replacements or are creating a test ship that they may or may not order depending on how it works out. Some get cancelled and never built. Some go unused. Some are reassigned to an older ship refit for modern service. Rather than a serial number of that hull, it is a registry number for that hull in that role. Which can change just as ships in the US Navy have changed roles. Take the Langley CV-1. They converted it from the Collier, USS Jupiter AC-?. So both name and number changed. As much of Star Trek is based on the US Navy and their practices, this makes total sense. But usually if a ship is just being upgraded with new technology in the same role, it keeps its name and number. So making the assumption that because Starfleet used NX-10521 for the USS Ambassador, it does not mean it is the ten thousand five hundred and twenty first ship in Starfleet. It is just the number assigned to that ship through whatever process starfleet uses. And keep in mind that lots of smaller craft have registries. And we don't know how that number and NCC relate. As we have seen, NCC and NX apply to the same ship with the same number. That number doesn't change if the letters do. So perhaps NDD or whatever other letter prefixes exist in Starfleet all still used the same number sequence.

Ambassador/Proto Galaxy:
These three images are interesting. But what I see is that it appears that Probert took that early sketch of the Ent D and brought it more in line with the final Ent D with some hints of 1701 and maybe Excelsior to create that Ambassador painting (and the side ortho which they used to make the model on the briefing room wall). It has the same pylons as that first drawing, but the secondary hull and delfector are closer to the Galaxy. The shape of the nacelles has hints of 1701 and some of the details feel inspired by Excelsior. But it is very close to that first sketch of Ent D.

Dialog accuracy:
I don't find the dialog in TOS accurate. A lot of the dialog in other areas of the franchise are questionable as well, but TOS was in a place where they were trying to figure these things out so in one episode they were thinking one thing and a few episodes later they were thinking something else. You can see that in the series. They start out with the United Earth Space Probe Agency and end up with the United Federation of Planets Starfleet. Kirk's quarters is supposed to be on deck 5. It does seem to move around. So does engineering. There is a general sense of where things are that is in line with the Deck layout in TMOST, but even after that was written, there are references that don't match. In The Day of the Dove the dialog implies one thing while the FX, clearly influenced by Jefferies, shows the entity leaving from where his cross section indicates he placed main engineering. And the dialog is written by so many hands it is hard to pin down who wrote what. There is the credited writer, D.C. Fontana, Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, and many others. And scripts get torn apart and rewritten so even if the original writer had carefully noted where each set was inside the ship, the setting for any given scene could move, the reference changed, but maybe not the location. So that is why I stick to what we see as it is a lot less subject to the variables. I stick to TMOST for the internal layout as that is what they intended, and honor Jefferies wishes over the obvious errors in writing and editing that fill the dialog.

That means cramming 11 decks in the saucer where you can't actually fit that many decks in without making some shorter. So decks that need to have workstations have a 8.25' minimum ceiling with a .75' deck thickness and in other places on the ship, there is room for the 9' ceiling shown in The Day of the Dove. I ignore the 10' set wall height as it was just the standard for all sets on all series. The sets were designed for open ceilings for lighting with details to block the camera's view of the open ceiling. TMP was better and most of the sets no longer have open ceilings.

So to convert what we see and hear on screen to mean means was need to undo the Hollywood shortcuts and errors and use unchanged what we can and change the rest to fit. The corridors are unchanged (except for different diameters of the curve) as are the quarters, but the Rec Deck, Engineering, the hanger, etc., have to be fit into the ship as Jefferies and Probert intended them. So the rec deck is twice as long and has a larger hump in the middle. The TOS engineering set is not a mirror image, but has a half deck at about the same height on either side. The TMP engineering set for 1701 has a corridor going forward that can't be there because it would go through the hull. Lots of little things like that to made the inside and outside fit. And Star Trek isn't the only property to have this issue. Try fitting the Millennium Falcon set inside the hull. You can't. They goofed when they converted it from straight to curved in 1977 and every rebuild of the set has kept the same mistakes ever since. It is a Hollywood thing that if we want to make realistic interpretations of we need to adjust for it. And the dialog is the biggest offender.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I’m not sure the Yamaguchi model was ever advertised in the auction as being the Enterprise-C. Or if it was, it was changed later according to the listing for it.

I was going to point on that the show said so, but somebody posted a link that was even more compelling.

Temporal Cold War (in addition to no phasers, photon torpedoes, or transporters). As it was, it would have worked great with a slight redress as the early voyages of NCC-1701 under Robert April.

Some TV Guides and stuff like that speculated that that was what Enterprise was going to be, and then it was not that when it went to production. Sometimes I think they may not have been sure when they started planning the project.

Maybe start with the off-round/shallow ellipse of the Niagara class, slap on some elongated Galaxy nacelles a la the New Orleans class, and there's your Rigel?

This idea is interesting because the Niagara and Freedom, which use this saucer, are likely using full-size Galaxy nacelles and thus the saucers are closer to the size of the Ambassador's or Galaxy's. That would make the ship you propose here much bigger than, but very similar in appearance to, the New Orleans.

Probert said in the Trekyards interview I've mentioned that he conceived the ship is his Ambassador painting to have a partially ovoid saucer, but not as long as the Galaxy's. He did not explain why he went ahead and used a circular saucer when his painting was interpolated into a centerfold for the Ships of the Line calendar.

I go with the Excelsior study model with the two small Grissom style engines for the Merced class (remember Data's commentary about a ship of this class being able to catch the Enterprise as "too small, too slow").

That would likely be more logical than the model that was built for DS9, but since that model exists, even offscreen, I guess that should be the Merced-class. It very well could be in a background shot of DS9 and never yet been recognized.

The model certainly seems like a small ship, but, as I think about it, this design seem like a poor choice to be the Merced class when it has Galaxy-style nacelles. Using our imagination to suppose that Dan Curry have had money to build and SHOW this ship in the TNG episode, it would be bad for the drama for the audience if a "slow" ship had Galaxy nacelles.

I have not yet come up with a rationalization for this.

I use a modification of the fan system of the 70's. (That was "YYMM.DD") To put it another way, the decimal point it moved one place compared with TOS. So, Spock's death on 8128.76 would be sometime about 1/3rd of the way through the year 2281; in TOS this Stardate would have been 1287.6

TMP-7412-early 2274
ST:II-already noted, about 7 years later
ST:III-8210-ealy 2282, or a a few months after ST:II
ST:IV-8390-late 2283, nearly a year after the start of ST:III
ST:V-8454-mid 2284, about 5 months after ST:IV
ST:VI-9529- mid 2295, or 11 years after ST:V

--With only 3 months of Vulcan exile, ST:III must have taken months of time from Grissom's early survey to the arrival on Vulcan.

Whether it's symmetrical, I don't know. Whether the room is all we see and there's some other vital systemry just to port, necessitating moving the facility off the centerline, I don't know.

I sometimes like to think that there is another room that looks the same with the pipe structure facing forward and heading to the deflector dish. I don't know exactly what architectural term to use, but if you "mirror" the two rooms the right way, you could use the same, essentially unaltered set, for both rooms, on with the ladders to port and the pies headed forward, and one with the ladders to starboard and the pipes facing aft.

Come to think of it, this could explain a lot of the potential-technical-inconsistency questions about TOS we've been discussing.

The Constitution class in 2245 was arguably smaller and more primitive than what we saw twenty years on in TOS, by which point the Miranda class was in service, and that saucer is much more different yet.

Given that the bridge and deflector dish were made smaller to imply a bigger ship when the series started, this is possibly the case.

This is the proto-Enterprise-D:

It is truly amazing that this painting outlined what the Enterprise-D would look like when even many of its predecessors had not been designed yet.

 

[Redshirt214]

Some interesting discussions on ships age in this thread, and FWIW I'd like to share my "design era".

Refit Design Lineage:
Constitution Refit
Soyuz
Miranda (Antares, Saratoga, Lantree)
Sydney
Constellation

All these ships use Constitution refit class parts, and were heavily based on the refit technologies. I put the Miranda class subclasses in parens, because I consider them variant\refits of that design. Constellation I consider to be roughly contemporary with the Excelsior, and the sort of ultimate design of that lineage.

Excelsior Design Lineage:
Excelsior (1701B)
Oberth
Centaur

I'm of the opinion that the Centaur class and Excelsior class are close contemporaries, with the Centaur playing the little sister kind of role, though perhaps with a limited production of ships since Mirandas are seen more on screen. The Centaur to me says "border patrol" ship, perhaps a little more focused on fighting than a Miranda. Also, it should be noted that the Centaur is smaller than a Miranda, it is scaled to the torpedo pod not the Excelsior bits, so it's a really pretty small ship. Still wish we'd seen more them, though!

I also think the Oberth ought to be a contemporary, since it's engines are pretty much the same design as those you can see on early Excelsior study models. Although I consider it pretty much a civilian\auxillary type ship, I think it makes sense that it's relatively contemporary.

Excelsiors, in my opinion, were probably the most produced of this era, and would have been the stock ship of the line. They were the true long runners of Starfleet, alongside the Miranda, but I suspect part of the longievety of the Miranda was due to it always being something of a second line ship, so it's survival is perhaps less impressive than the Excelsior which seems to have been the de facto frontline starship for Starfleet for a really long time.

Pre-TNG\Ambassador Design Lineage:
Ambassador (Yamaguchi\Zhukov refit)
Springfeild
Cheyenne

I debated whether or not to put those other two classes on the list since they are IRL Galxay bashes, but they look like they ought to be older that the Galaxy, Nebula, and New Orleans so I was thinking they were more in line with the earlier ships. If you compare them not with the Enterprise C, but with ships like the Zhukov, I think it's plausible. I've also been of the opinion that the Ambassador class was only ever built in small numbers, and I think that's probably true of the other ships of this era too. I assume they were being built to replace worn-out ships as they slowly retired, which would result in a lower production rate than one might see during the Dominion War or Wolf 359 where ships were being mass produced to make up for great losses in a short period of time.

Galaxy Design Lineage:
New Orleans
Galaxy
Nebula

The full range! I really wish the New Orleans had showed up more in TNG, I think it would have made a great small size addition to the Galaxy line, alongside the Nebula. Post Galaxy era there seems to be a kind of profusion of designs, though some like the Akira or Intrepid are definitely closer to the Galaxy than others.

 

[yotsuya]

Some interesting discussions on ships age in this thread, and FWIW I'd like to share my "design era".

Refit Design Lineage:
Constitution Refit
Soyuz
Miranda (Antares, Saratoga, Lantree)
Sydney
Constellation

All these ships use Constitution refit class parts, and were heavily based on the refit technologies. I put the Miranda class subclasses in parens, because I consider them variant\refits of that design. Constellation I consider to be roughly contemporary with the Excelsior, and the sort of ultimate design of that lineage.

Excelsior Design Lineage:
Excelsior (1701B)
Oberth
Centaur

I'm of the opinion that the Centaur class and Excelsior class are close contemporaries, with the Centaur playing the little sister kind of role, though perhaps with a limited production of ships since Mirandas are seen more on screen. The Centaur to me says "border patrol" ship, perhaps a little more focused on fighting than a Miranda. Also, it should be noted that the Centaur is smaller than a Miranda, it is scaled to the torpedo pod not the Excelsior bits, so it's a really pretty small ship. Still wish we'd seen more them, though!

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the Centaur. There is very little reason to scale it based on the Reliant parts and many many reasons to scale it on the Excelsior parts. The windows make no sense in the Reliant scale but fit perfectly in the Excelsior scale. And the bridge works as well in that scale, even if the part is oversized. But windows, hanger, and other details indicate that it is to be scaled with the Excelsior and is an Excelsior version of the Reliant/Shenzhou style design.

 

[137th Gebirg]

As I demonstrated in my previous post, the windows are far too large to be Excelsior-scaled.

 

[Dukhat]

And even ignoring the windows (which weren’t lit or even seen on screen), there’s no way the Centaur scales with an Excelsior. The dogfight between it and the Jem’Hadar bug makes it pretty clear that both ships are roughly the same size.

 

[yotsuya]

As I demonstrated in my previous post, the windows are far too large to be Excelsior-scaled.

They match the Galaxy style windows and the placement only works for the Excelsior scale.

 

[yotsuya]

And even ignoring the windows (which weren’t lit or even seen on screen), there’s no way the Centaur scales with an Excelsior. The dogfight between it and the Jem’Hadar bug makes it pretty clear that both ships are roughly the same size.

Since when has scale accuracy been a thing in Star Trek? How many times have ships been incorrectly scaled? Far too often for one instance to be definitive.

Also, you are incorrect about the windows. They used florescent paint and did the typical multi-pass composite, so the windows were lit. The screen caps prove it and show that the size and frequency of the windows means it needs to be scaled to the Excelsior parts. That would make it about 350 meters.

 

[137th Gebirg]

They match the Galaxy style windows and the placement only works for the Excelsior scale.

They match the Galaxy style in shape, not size. Two entirely different metrics.

 

[Dukhat]

Since when has scale accuracy been a thing in Star Trek? How many times have ships been incorrectly scaled? Far too often for one instance to be definitive.

Also, you are incorrect about the windows. They used florescent paint and did the typical multi-pass composite, so the windows were lit. The screen caps prove it and show that the size and frequency of the windows means it needs to be scaled to the Excelsior parts. That would make it about 350 meters.

Sorry, I have to disagree. We see the Centaur and the bug flying together and they’re roughly the same size. If you’re only using the windows as your matrix of scale, then perhaps those aren’t actually windows, but sensors or something. You say it yourself: scale isn't accurate in Star Trek. But the one and only time we see the Centaur, the visuals give the impression that the overall ship was meant to be small, regardless of the actual detailing on the filming model.

https://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/6x01/atimetostand_510.jpg

Also, from Adam Buckner himself:

”I built it for the beginning of Season 6 on DS9 as a background ship for my episodes around the space station where the detailing and scaling would be less noticeable as being completely mixed, but when Gary Hutzel saw it, he wanted it for his Episode with the JH Bug. I added more detail at this point to make sure the scale looked like a smaller ship even tho' it was an Excelsior dish."

It’s quite possible that the windows were originally there when the ship was meant to be larger, and became just an artifact once he scaled down the ship.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Perhaps they're windows for a race of tiny people.

A ship of Kevins.

 

[David cgc]

There's no law that says every ring of windows has to be a separate deck. Given how relatively flat the saucer is, they could just be skylights for multiple rings of rooms. It's not like Starfleet avoids putting windows into the floors and ceilings of compartments on any other ship.

 

[yotsuya]

As far as I'm concerned, the Centaur class is 381 meters long and in scale with the Excelsior canon length. I really don't care what detailing they added, they didn't change the windows or the hanger. And making that already small hanger smaller makes it ridiculously tiny. The bridge is just a larger teardrop with a smaller bridge at the top.

This is in the same way that I do not rescale the Excelsior based on the changes for Star Trek VI. like the TOS and Refit bridges, I just push down the Excelsior bridge and what we see is just the dome covering it. The Centaur class is sort of the reverse with a larger dome than needed, but that works too. Scaling it based on the reliant parts makes very little sense. The hanger becomes too small, the windows no longer line up to decks, and there is no good reason to follow that path.

Like the Defiant. You can scale it any number of ways, but the scaled in on the series one way and whether or not the FX always lined up to that scale is immaterial. It has an intended scale and that is the one that should be used. I think the scale on Star Trek ships should be what fits best, not what fits in one case. For the Centaur it fits best scaled to its Excelsior parts. Excelsior fits best scaled as they scaled it for Star Trek III and later for the model wall. The TMP refit is 1000' and the TOS Enterprise 947. You can come up with reasons to change the scale on nearly all of them, but why? You can make that scale work and it works well so why change it.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

It has an intended scale and that is the one that should be used.

Adam Buckner: I added more detail at this point to make sure the scale looked like a smaller ship even tho' it was an Excelsior dish.

 

[Dukhat]

You can think whatever you want. The evidence as shown on screen refutes you.

As far as I’m concerned, those windows are sensors and the hanger part is now a deflector dish. The parts they were originally intended to be are now something else. That’s the whole point of kitbashing parts that are out of scale to each other.

 

[yotsuya]

I disagree. And there are plenty of others who agree that it should be scaled to the excelsior parts. It is easy to find the dimension scaled to the Excelsior online, but no so easy to find smaller dimensions. I think it is very silly to scale a model based on a couple of pieces when the rest says otherwise. It makes just as much sense from a kitbashing perspective to go one way as the other. And those windows fit perfectly with the excelsior scale. perfectly. Deck for deck. So I believe that is the scale it was built at and the other was just an attempt to make it seem smaller for a later appearance, but it didn't work as far as I'm concerned. I'm sticking with the original intention. Same as with the Excelsior.

And with Eaglemoss, Ed Giddings, and tobias Richter rendering it with details that only make sense at the larger scale, I think it is a safe bet to stick with the larger scale. I don't think the on screen evidence really goes one way or the other. I think the model reveals its own secrets and it says larger. I mean they didn't even conceal the excelsior saucer's rim windows. And Eaglemoss went so far as to go back to the Excelsior bridge to set the scale. so I don't think there is anything to discuss, any more than Bill George changing the bridge and hanger change the scale of the Excelsior class. That is really set by the rim and the rest of the windows as Steve Gawley and team applied them and by what Nilo Rodis dictated for the size (which Probert solidified and made canon). Every ship has a scale and it is hard to hide. The two Reliant kit parts don't dictate the scale of the Centaur class.

 

[137th Gebirg]

What it should be, is based on opinion. What it is, is based on canonical fact. What “plenty of others” wish were true is irrelevant to established historical truth.

You may feel free to disagree, that is your right to do so, but factual proof will dispute anyone’s head-canon.

Too many models, props and other things have gone unexplained over the years, from this and other franchises. We should feel extremely fortunate that we have an actual written account from the model builder in this precise context for what was done and why.

 

[Dukhat]

The Eaglemoss model of the Centaur was not what was shown on screen. It is an extrapolation based on someone’s opinion as to how they wanted the CGI model to look. The Eaglemoss model is not canon.

Again, you’re welcome to believe whatever you want, and to justify it by saying that multiple people of nebulous identity also agree with you. But I’d bet that the same number of people would agree with me that the Centaur is a small ship that just happened to use kitbashed parts from a larger ship. But I have screen evidence on my side, plus the account of the guy who actually built the model. So I really have nothing more to say on the subject other than the intent was that they needed a small ship to combat the Jem’Hadar bug for that scene, and the outcome was that they modified the model accordingly to come up with that small ship.

 

[yotsuya]

Wow. the "I am right and you are wrong" vibe is certainly strong around here. Sorry folks, but when it comes to this sort of thing it is all opinion. There really is no single solution, only the one that any given person finds to fit best with their concept. Just because I think that up scaling the TOS and TMP era ships is silly does not negate the fine work that some have done in upscaling those designs. That is there opinion and they are welcome to it. I don't agree with it. So I really don't care if you think you are right. That is just one opinion and there is room for many opinions. I base mine on evidence. I don't see any good evidence on screen to scale any Star Trek ships. I see models of various scales that the FX teams couldn't keep straight on sizes until they started to build them in CG in scale with each other. So when it comes to a kitbash plastic model build for background shots that just happened to appear along side another model, that scale is irrelevant. Sure the model make added some bits to give the illusion of a smaller scale. Bill George changed some stuff on the Excelsior to give the illusion of a larger scale. Big whoop. Neither action has an impact on the perceived scale as I see it. The man behind the Excelsior created the scale, not the model builders. Nilos Rodis-Jamero set the scale at 1531 feet/467 meters. The Centaur is based on the Excelsior and the model builder hasn't commented on the scale he intended other than to say for that other appearance he added greebles to change the appearance for that use, but I think that really implies he originally intended it to be larger. It is larger in several printed and online sources.

And if you don't know who Tobias Richter and Ed Giddings are, you really shouldn't be commenting on this topic at all. Two very respected CG artists whose work has seen a variety of official uses. Not that they got everything right, but their work is exemplary. From what I see before me, the Centaur saucer is the same 186 meter diameter as the Excelsior. That makes the ship about 380 meters long and 220 meters wide. The windows fit with the Excelsior saucer decks. The windows on the edge were left, though not painted to be lit by UV light like the others. The bridge is over sized, but the end look more resembles the TOS bridge/teardrop or the Discovery combination more than it looks like the TMP bridge. The few things that are being cited as tying it to a different scale are not backed up by anything I see or care to consider.

Am I saying you are wrong? No. But you are saying I am wrong and that arrogant attitude does not further the topic of discussion which is the USS Excelsior studio model. Much of the discussion on this topic has been in areas that I consider on topic because it is part of the broader project that I'm working on. I am not taking one tiny item in isolation and making it the lynch-pin of my thesis. I am building a logical structure from many pieces that fit together where other pieces don't. You are free to discuss things as you like, I enjoy threads that stray from time to time from the main topic, but when you start claiming you have the golden knowledge that makes you right in a topic that clearly has a difference of opinion born out by many many sources is something I consider very off topic. You not possess the power to dictate which direction I interpret the size of the Centaur or Excelsior classes. You are welcome to your opinion, but don't tell me I'm wrong when what you are claiming is just your opinion, your head canon.