The Excelsior - uncovering the design

[Spaceship Jo]

I see several have beat me to it, but it is worth chiming in that the red circled ships in the fleet shots very much have the visible Akira saucer notch. Beyond that, I couldn't honestly swear I could tell much in the way about the details of ship class, but I can certainly see that these aren't Excelsior saucers aka Centaurs.

 

[yotsuya]

Why would they create a huge CGI fleet and then throw in a physical model kit that they’d have to film? For whatever reason, those Akiras aren’t lit in that screencap. Don’t ask me why. But they’re Akiras. I can tell just by the way the nacelles are angled, the notch in the front of the saucer, and the hole underneath the saucer where the Akira’s deflector is located. I’m not sure why you aren’t seeing that.

It doesn't look like the later CG fleet shots. They were doing some of this before CG and for a fairly static background plate I can see being able to do it quicker not in CG.

 

[Dukhat]

It doesn't look like the later CG fleet shots. They were doing some of this before CG and for a fairly static background plate I can see being able to do it quicker not in CG.

That whole fleet was CGI in those screencaps you posted. There would be zero reason to mix one physical model in with the rest of those ships.

 

[yotsuya]

I see several have beat me to it, but it is worth chiming in that the red circled ships in the fleet shots very much have the visible Akira saucer notch. Beyond that, I couldn't honestly swear I could tell much in the way about the details of ship class, but I can certainly see that these aren't Excelsior saucers aka Centaurs.

I don't think they are Akira class. I can't see the notch and it doesn't match other Akira CG renderings. Though if it isn't a CG shot (at least not the background ships), maybe they forgot some of the layers of the background ships. But the Excelsiors and Mirandas are all properly lit, even if dim.

And please note I am not insisting that said shot has to include Centarus, but I don't see Akiras. At least not consistent with the later CG version in that same episode.

 

[Dukhat]

I think you are seeing what you want to see.

 

[yotsuya]

And all the comments have been about the screen caps from that episode. Any comments on the caps from A Time To Stand that show a totally different scale? The Centaur is at least twice as wide as the Jem Hadar fighter. Not that I go by FX shots, but if you do....

 

[Dukhat]

The Jem’Hadar fighter is at least 100 meters. The Centaur, scaled to Miranda proportions, is over 200 meters. So I’m not seeing the problem here.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

I don't think they are Akira class. I can't see the notch and it doesn't match other Akira CG renderings. Though if it isn't a CG shot (at least not the background ships), maybe they forgot some of the layers of the background ships. But the Excelsiors and Mirandas are all properly lit, even if dim.

And please note I am not insisting that said shot has to include Centarus, but I don't see Akiras. At least not consistent with the later CG version in that same episode.

I'm not sure how one could not see the notch. It's quite evident. I'd fully admit that it could be something other than an Akira, as (besides the notch) I can't make out much more than the general configuration. But it's certainly not an Excelsior saucer at play in those shots.

This is all sort of off topic, I suppose though, sort of all a red herring in regards to the meat of your excelsior project. The major through-line is of course how when people are presented with quite definitive evidence, they dismiss it, and when presented with quite insubstantial evidence, they claim it to be definitive.

 

[yotsuya]

The Jem’Hadar fighter is at least 100 meters. The Centaur, scaled to Miranda proportions, is over 200 meters. So I’m not seeing the problem here.

The Centaur scaled to Miranda Proportions is 210 long and 116 wide. The Jem Hadar fighter is 68 long and 70 wide. According to the scale on screen, the Centaur is in excess of that size. Unless the ships fly within a couple of meters, then the Centaur is a lot larger than those numbers indicate. The 380 length fits much better and puts the ships at a reasonable distance apart. Incidentally the 210 dimension is the width at 380. Also, I don't think they actually were following any scale for these shots so I don't expect to see any way to prove the centaur is 380 m long, but I don't see that it can be the smaller scale without the ships actually touching.

 

[yotsuya]

I'm not sure how one could not see the notch. It's quite evident. I'd fully admit that it could be something other than an Akira, as (besides the notch) I can't make out much more than the general configuration. But it's certainly not an Excelsior saucer at play in those shots.

This is all sort of off topic, I suppose though, sort of all a red herring in regards to the meat of your excelsior project. The major through-line is of course how when people are presented with quite definitive evidence, they dismiss it, and when presented with quite insubstantial evidence, they claim it to be definitive.

I consider much of this discussion to relate to things that I have previously ruminated on regarding various Trek ships at various times. Did Star Trek III show the Excelsior to scale or not? Did they use Nilo Rodis-Jamero's scale? Did the FX people pay any attention? So turning our attention to the Centaur and when it appeared and what the FX shots show (especially as it is Excelsior inspired) is sort of fun. Star Trek is so full of mistakes and contradictions in FX shots that I find it amusing when others put so much stock in them. Even in CG shots, the CG models have to be in the same scale and from what I can see, scale still seemed to be an issue even when they went to CG FX. The best judge of scale on any model are the details the modeler put there and the intent of the designers. Excelsior had 3 designers, Bill George, Nilo Rodis-Jamero, and Steve Gawley. Buckner's deign was changed when the florescent paint/stickers were applied and by his own insistence that that is a hanger in front. Excelsior's was set by Nilo Rodis-Jamero and repeated by FASA and Andrew Probert and AMT (fun trivia, the Ent B and current Round 2 kits are shorter than the initial AMT Kit which was exactly 1/1000th of 467 meters). So I consider that a given even if it does take a little extra effort to explain some of the windows, but then the design has issues with that anyway.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

I consider much of this discussion to relate to things that I have previously ruminated on regarding various Trek ships at various times.

Absolutely! But the Centaur isn't an Excelsior. You can't scale the MF to the size of the pieces it's much of the greebling is kitbashed from. Apples and oranges? Sorta. It's a fun (for some) mental exercise, a side tangent at best. It neither corroborates nor invalidates any proper Excelsior scaling.

 

[yotsuya]

Absolutely! But the Centaur isn't an Excelsior. You can't scale the MF to the size of the pieces it's much of the greebling is kitbashed from. Apples and oranges? Sorta. It's a fun (for some) mental exercise, a side tangent at best. It neither corroborates nor invalidates any proper Excelsior scaling.

I agree in general. Kitbashes are the sum of their parts. But when a part is used in its intended function and helps set the scale, then you have something concrete to go by. I went by 3 things. The hanger. The Excelsior aft hanger is already almost too small for shuttles. It is smaller than the Constitution Class hanger. But it also has a lower hanger. The Centaur does not. The saucer and the nacelle parts are from the Excelsior as well. That just adds to the feeling that it should be that scale. But the clincher for me is the windows. True they were not added by the original designer, but they were added before any filming and they set the scale for me. So it is the hanger and windows more than the Excelsior saucer that indicate scale. And the windows of the Centaur line up to my deck layout perfectly. At least on top. So it is not just one thing.

The same with my scaling of the Excelsior. Sure 476 m is the official length. But is there anything on the model to indicate a different scale? I have not found anything. The slight narrow window spacing on the secondary hull gave me some trouble, but I found a solution I like. And the saucer fits with the Enterprise Refit and Reliant. Larger but with the same rim thickness. I found that there was a solution for every single issue that kept it in the same scale. I did find a scale I wouldn't mind scaling it up to, but it wasn't enough of an improvement for me to insist on it. I personally feel that the canon sizes are quite large and roomy and I don't think people realize just how huge these ships really are or how many people they could hold.

And I love the Galaxy based kitbashes that very clearly have larger windows to denote a completely different scale. For me that means those classes were first to experiment with the new hull shape and how that impacts warp field dynamics. Same with the Intrepid class leading to the Sovereign.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

The Jem Hadar fighter is 68 long and 70 wide.

By that time at least it was supposed to be 500 feet (150 meters) long according to multiple VFX sources: comments by David Stipes, LightWave model scale, notes on camera test models put on auction. See here for more information. The 68m length probably came from Rick Sternbach measuring ships ordered by size as illustrated for the second edition of the Encyclopedia.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Wow... Away for a couple of hours and the thread blows up!

I shall add my voice to the mix - the red-circled ships were definitely all Akiras, not Centaurs.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The same with my scaling of the Excelsior. Sure 476 m is the official length. But is there anything on the model to indicate a different scale?

Well clearly the intent isn't for the bridge to be recessed a deck. The little dome and lounge behind that we see from STIV onward are supposed to represent the bridge, and it's about half the size it should be. Furthermore, deck heights are about 7', going by Doug Drexler's Enterprise-B cutaway used in Generations.

To me, that's damning enough evidence the Excelsior should be around 700 meters.

 

[yotsuya]

Well clearly the intent isn't for the bridge to be recessed a deck. The little dome and lounge behind that we see from STIV onward are supposed to represent the bridge, and it's about half the size it should be. Furthermore, deck heights are about 7', going by Doug Drexler's Enterprise-B cutaway used in Generations.

To me, that's damning enough evidence the Excelsior should be around 700 meters.

There is a long history of sinking the bridge and the Excelsior has a level that can't be a full deck. So the original bridge fits nicely. The revised bridge dome can't in any reasonable world fit any bridge. It is too narrow.

As for the decks, you can fit anything in the ship. The decks can be any size you like. The Excelsior and Enterprise B drawings we see on screen are not to scale. Not by any means. Drexler also didn't scale his MSD in In A Mirror Darkly in any way that makes sense. So those aren't anything to even consider. Especially as you can barely see anything on screen.

Except for the cargo decks in the secondary hull, all the deck heights in the Excelsior are the same as the TMP refit. You start with 2 at the saucer rim and go up and down and the TMP standard 8 foot ceilings fit perfectly (9 foot from deck to deck).

 

[F. King Daniel]

There is a long history of sinking the bridge and the Excelsior has a level that can't be a full deck. So the original bridge fits nicely. The revised bridge dome can't in any reasonable world fit any bridge. It is too narrow.

Sure you can, so long as you make it bigger. Here's the 467m Excelsior bridge next to the Enterprise-A bridge

And here's a fan interpretation of the inside of the Excelsior's bridge dome. Of course, the windows suggest more of an NX-01 type arrangement, or Discoprise/USS Kelvin with a corridor around.

As for the decks, you can fit anything in the ship. The decks can be any size you like. The Excelsior and Enterprise B drawings we see on screen are not to scale. Not by any means. Drexler also didn't scale his MSD in In A Mirror Darkly in any way that makes sense. So those aren't anything to even consider. Especially as you can barely see anything on screen.

Obviously the cutaways are supposed to represent the interior of the vessel. And this is what happens when you scale a 467m Excelsior with a 6' Mister Spock...

Except for the cargo decks in the secondary hull, all the deck heights in the Excelsior are the same as the TMP refit. You start with 2 at the saucer rim and go up and down and the TMP standard 8 foot ceilings fit perfectly (9 foot from deck to deck).

Not at 467m they're not. I recall years ago I came up with a 600+m figure for reasonable deck heights, and 770ish to fir the bridge into the top dome.

 

[Unicron]

I don't think they are Akira class. I can't see the notch and it doesn't match other Akira CG renderings. Though if it isn't a CG shot (at least not the background ships), maybe they forgot some of the layers of the background ships. But the Excelsiors and Mirandas are all properly lit, even if dim.

And please note I am not insisting that said shot has to include Centarus, but I don't see Akiras. At least not consistent with the later CG version in that same episode.

If you're referring to the small indented notch on the front of the saucer, that's very difficult to see in wide fleet shots from the perspective of the opening pan. You can definitely see some nose details of where that notch is in some of those front shots, but it doesn't look quite the same as when the ship is at a cleaner angle. As an example, to refer back to this shot:

The Akira on the right I mentioned earlier is in the foreground enough that it's pretty well detailed. We can even see the notch. But the Akira in the middle of the shot (below the Steamrunner) is far enough away that it's practically invisible - just a minor variation at the front of the saucer. Also factor in that this is a pretty busy shot, so you'd really have to focus on specific details. The same is true with many shots of other FC designs like the Steamrunner - unless the model is in the right spot, the notch just looks like a minor detail in the saucer shape.

The main way to tell in the SOA pan, though, is the deflector bulge on the ventral saucer. That's pretty obvious and the Saber is the only other design that has something similar to it. There's also the fact that the Akira has a very distinctive, angled front profile relative to the arrangement of the saucer and the nacelles, because its nacelles are slung behind it on the catamaran. The Centaur's have a similar angle of bend but are more slung under it, because of how they connect to the weapons pod. So assuming there were some actual Centaurs in the OR fleet, I think the front profiles of each class would be easy to distinguish.

Incidentally, I was wrong about the SOA Excelsiors not being lit - it's just less visible in some shots than others. My mistake there. But it is in line with the lighting not being consistent in various shots, especially in the fleet shots.

 

[yotsuya]

Sure you can, so long as you make it bigger. Here's the 467m Excelsior bridge next to the Enterprise-A bridge

And here's a fan interpretation of the inside of the Excelsior's bridge dome. Of course, the windows suggest more of an NX-01 type arrangement, or Discoprise/USS Kelvin with a corridor around.

Obviously the cutaways are supposed to represent the interior of the vessel. And this is what happens when you scale a 467m Excelsior with a 6' Mister Spock...

Not at 467m they're not. I recall years ago I came up with a 600+m figure for reasonable deck heights, and 770ish to fir the bridge into the top dome.

I don't think you've spent as much time on this ship as I have.

The MSD's on screen are to be ignored. If you go by them you will have issues because they are not accurate. There were no plans of the Excelsior that the production team had to work with. The only plans were preliminary and never left ILM. No one on the production had access to the model or any measurements from the model. Only a few photos. So there is no chance that any drawing made by the production team of the Excelsior or Enterprise B is going to be accurate. I could list what they got wrong, but it would probably be the longest post I ever made and I have no interest in taking the time. Just ignore those because they are wrong. They are are good filler, but they aren't accurate, any more than the TOS era MSD-ish drawing is accurate.

The bridge for the MK II and MK III variants of the Excelsior class (same bridge but different top of the saucer) can only work at any reasonable scale to the rest of the ship if the bridge is sunken far enough so that that structure only covers the central dome are. And just a reminder, you have to do the same thing to the TOS series bridge and the TFF and TUC bridge as well. So sinking the bridge is a standard practice. So standard that the TNG bridge was sunken from the start. You don't have to have the bridge stick out and be exactly the same size and shape as the dome like it was for the TOS pilots and TMP-TSFS. And from the design of the aft end of that bridge module, those windows have to lead to a small upper lounge area. It is either a really tiny lounge that is tucked tightly behind the bridge, or you sink the bridge and give that area enough room to actually have people in it. It all works at 467 meters. I've played with this ship long enough to say that with certainty.

 

[yotsuya]

But it is in line with the lighting not being consistent in various shots, especially in the fleet shots.

LOL... consistency was not high on their list. That they got the shots done and on budge was probably all we can expect from them. Pretty good for those constraints.