Just bought the newest Star Trek: The Magazine, & got a pleasant surprise: There's yet another Excelsior study model! (Sorry, won't have access to my scanner until Sunday night, so no pics yet).
However, I believe that this model was also used at Qualor II. It's another four-nacelled ship, and the ship in this screencap that we all thought was another view of the known four-naceller is actually another model:
I can tell it's a different model because it has an underslung "pod" where the deflector dish is. This screencap shows the same pod.
Anyway, the article has terrific huge pics of all the study models. The first pic shows top & side views of the new study model. The second pic shows the top & side views of the "Flat" study model, which was the one labeled U.S.S. Alka-Selsior, with a registry of NCC-1404. The third pic shows a new side view of the known four-nacelled model. The fourth pic shows a top, front and rear view of the model that looks the most like the Excelsior. However, they screwed up by showing a side view of the other study model (the one that looks similar to the finished model, but with several small differences). This model has a registry of NCC-1X00 (I can't tell what the second number is).
I'll post scans here Sunday night, unless someone beats me to them first.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:It's another four-nacelled ship
OK! People PAY UP!! I was right!! That ship in the 'preview' had 4 nacelles!!
No one would BELIEVE me... *sigh*
quote:I can tell it's a different model because it has an underslung "pod" where the deflector dish is. This screencap shows the same pod.
And if I remember correctly from that preview pic... it also had 2 large 'squares' behind the saucer (like where the impulse engines might be) - which the previously known 4-naceller didn't have.
Andrew
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sure looks like the regular 4-naceller to me.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Bleh. I still say the top and side view of the preview were of different ships
BTW, I thought this Mag wasn't supposed to come out until well into December?
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
A very silly question- These ships were seen in the filmed Star Trek. They both have registries. Do we accept these registries as canon?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Fancy form it is. Of poetry? Certainly.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Very interersting. I look forward to seeing the scans...
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
You can accept the names if you want. They're not meant to be taken seriously. Take alook at many LCAR labels as well, if you want.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What names are these?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What names are these?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: The second pic shows the top & side views of the "Flat" study model, which was the one labeled U.S.S. Alka-Selsior, with a registry of NCC-1404.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
One could go out on a limb and say there was a USS Excelsior NCC-1404, the predecessor to the Excelsior NX-2000. Of course, it would help if we didn't know that the model looks like something from post-TOS.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Except that isn't the name of the ship in question.
There are, I suppose, some fairly interesting semiotic issues here, and in the registry number thread, but to discuss them seems frightening.
Posted by Starship Millennium (Member # 822) on :
And no discussion at all about Rick Sternbach's U.S.S. Stargazer article, complete with cutaway and full Constellation class production list, yet? Hmm...
I think I'll hold off before adding any of these ship names to my personal list. But the designs themselves are pretty neat, and would work well as Excelsior derivatives in the pre-Ambassador Excelsior era, even if most were just one-offs...
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I am ok with the name Alka-Selsior. I like to think the name is that of an alien who is remembered by a ship named for him or her.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The family name or sub-ordinate-familial-unitary-coalescence is Alka. All other members are given their 'life-name'. Selsior was given to the Ventaarian diplomat after his 'coming of age' procession at the age of 111 Ventaarian seasonal units. That's 28.8 Earth-years. Alka Anessa was his pre-name. Alka Anessa was a key negotiator during the Kreetassen Appeal. He served on the Federation Counil for 59 years, his greatest political victory was the admission of the Aaamazarites into the United Federation of Planets. A Special Envoy of 500 diplomats made the journey from Ventaaria to the Utopia Planitia Ship Yards, Terran Sector in 2270 to attend the dedication of the Alka-Selsior, which took place on the 50th anniversary of the death of this Federation Legend.
There you go the history of Alka-Selsior Anessa, the name given tribute in the naming of the U.S.S. Alka-Selsior.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Thanks. Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Just a quick question, did anyone notice that according the Constellation class article, it stated that the Ambassador class was still on the drawing board in what appears the 2280's?
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
You mean 'already' on the drawing board... really?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
So 5? Or am I forgetting another?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
What is the oberth-like excelsior?
The drawn picture in Spacedock?
And Monkey... yes - I believe I WAS incorrect. Funny - two rear pods per nacelle.
Is that second fournaceller the sameone as the one Mike Okuda gave to someone here? I didn't think the nacelles were at a 45 degree angle like that! Does IT have two rear pods per nacelle?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
In the third picture the very bottom ship is different to the views of the VERY Excelsior design above it. The bottom side-view pic looks like one of the ones seen in the Art of Star Trek.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Indeed. Oberth-like engines, which is why it was called "Oberth-Excelsior" above.
It seems the saucer and its superstructure were "series produced" for some of the study models, but obviously not for all of them. And five models, total, seems the correct count.
And upon a closer look, all of the ships actually look pretty good (low resolution of modeling work notwithstanding, of course)! They all seem to depict vessels of roughly similar size, the saucer detail being the scale-establishing factor. So it's a bit dubious to say that they were all around in Kirk's days, since that would make the NX-2000 much less of an impact-maker.
They could all be part of a so far speculative "Excelsior generation" of ships, though. The four-nacellers especially could be part of the "real" fleet. Since it is already accepted that four-nacellers are rare sights even when they are known to exist (Constellation, Cheyenne), their absence from mainstream eps raises no eyebrows. And both of the four-nacellers did make it to an episode!
As for the three two-nacellers, it's a bit odd that they are never seen elsewhere, when other, older vessels are regularly spotted. But not impossible to believe. Perhaps the "almost-Excelsior" vessels could be considered one-off prototypes for the real thing (or perhaps not constructed - neither of them was ever seen on screen, right?). The flat two-naceller' absence from the limelights could then be a random oddity, like the one that keeps the Centaur type unseen...
BTW, none of the saucers seem to match the lone mystery saucer from Qualor II. So we have to look elsewhere.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Let me have a take on this:
1) The winged four-naceller. 2) The thin four-naceller (bottom picture). The same as the Okuda-photo.
3) The flat Excelsior. The same as the flat ship from the AOST.
4) The almost Excelsior. The top ship on that picture. 5) The almost Excelsior #2. Obviously, the same as the one from the AOST. (6) The final Excelsior.)
Perhaps you could add the Miranda/Oberth-y drawing from the last Magazine to the list, but these are the study models.
Edit: well.. some people cleared this all out the moment I was typing this so it doesn't make much sense anymore.. Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
The four-nacelled Excelsior (2) seems to have moveable pylons. On the Okuda-picture, the ship looks like an X-Wing in attack mode while the new picture shows the ship in X-Wing flight mode.
Interestingly, I always pictured the ship this was, allthough for another reason. Just looking at the Okuda-picture, you can see the neck acts like a crane, moving the saucer further away from the engines. Maybe it was ment to represent the warp- and transwarp-modes of the ship. Normal flight mode, '-'-pylons, short neck, and transwarp mode, long neck and 'x'-pylons.
The birthplace of MVAM. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: The four-nacelled Excelsior (2) seems to have moveable pylons. On the Okuda-picture, the ship looks like an X-Wing in attack mode while the new picture shows the ship in X-Wing flight mode.
Yes, hmm see my earlier post:
"Is that second fournaceller the sameone as the one Mike Okuda gave to someone here? I didn't think the nacelles were at a 45 degree angle like that!"
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
MMoM: Thanks for posting the pics. I didn't get home until very late last night, & was too tired to make the scans myself. Now I don't have to do them at all!
Anyway, upon closer viewing of the names & registries, I believe the Alka-Selsior's reg is actually NCC-2404, not 1404 as I earlier stated. I still can't make out the best study model's reg (NCC-1X00). If I had to guess, it would probably be either 1800 or 1900.
On a side note, it was actually Leonard Nimoy who picked the final study model to be the Excelsior. Good choice, Leonard!
Posted by Akira (Member # 850) on :
OPPS
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Not only does the 4-naceller seem to be built for variable pylon geometry: its entire aft hull looks like it would telescope into the forward hull. In some old thread, somebody did a photomanip of the "compacted" configuration, and it looked pretty nifty. Of course, it would make zero sense to dedicate most of the internal volume of the saucer to this telescoping function, but this seems to be what the model builders intended. The variable geometry would have been the "Ooh factor" that would set the Excelsior apart from the Enterprise in the movie.
Originally, I thought the flat 2-naceller would have a telescoping hull as well. Now I'm not so sure.
Since variable geometry wasn't equated with transwarp in the final version of the movie, we could invent another rationale for that feature of the 4-naceller. Perhaps she's a barge carrier that extends her hull to accept the desired number of barges, yet compacts herself when traveling empty?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Maybe stretching/compressing it's warp-field allows greater stability at higher warp-factors?
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
I seem to recall, which means that I may have dreamt it, that when Okuda provided the 4 nacelle image he said that it had been broken and repaired at some stage. Wouldn't that explain the difference in the nacelle angles?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Not only does the 4-naceller seem to be built for variable pylon geometry: its entire aft hull looks like it would telescope into the forward hull. In some old thread, somebody did a photomanip of the "compacted" configuration, and it looked pretty nifty. Of course, it would make zero sense to dedicate most of the internal volume of the saucer to this telescoping function, but this seems to be what the model builders intended. The variable geometry would have been the "Ooh factor" that would set the Excelsior apart from the Enterprise in the movie.
Originally, I thought the flat 2-naceller would have a telescoping hull as well. Now I'm not so sure.
Since variable geometry wasn't equated with transwarp in the final version of the movie, we could invent another rationale for that feature of the 4-naceller. Perhaps she's a barge carrier that extends her hull to accept the desired number of barges, yet compacts herself when traveling empty?
Timo Saloniemi
To quote AndrewR: "Yes, hmm see my earlier post."
Maybe the neck has nothing to do with the nacelles and the warp field. When I thought about the vessel and its mission some time ago, I used to think it was some sort of test vehicle, like the Proto-Nebula. We never saw it before, we never saw it after Wolf. If Starfleet brought everything they had to Wolf, including ships that would have never seen the light of day (like the Melbourne), this could have been one of them (maybe along with some other "Phase 2"-models). My concept of this ship had two rotating torpedo platforms between the neck pylons. If the ship goes to "attack mode", the neck is stretched and they move out of their alcoves on the rear side of the saucer.
(Besides that, I made the ship a real class, the unseen Rigel-class Tolstoy - since this vessel was seen in the far background of the screen besides the Melbourne and Kyushu, IIRC.)
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Sorry about that...
Yeah, the variable geometry could certainly be for some reason that has nothing to do with propulsion. The deploying turrets sound quite nifty! However, the Rigel class has relatively high registries in the Encyclopedia, and pops up elsewhere in the timeline, too. I'd thus prefer a more modern design, at the very least with a Galaxy-era saucer...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I'm not very comfortable with randomly assigning Okuda's conjectural class designations to these models, foremost because that's not what Okuda intended them to be. As a matter of fact, the reason why there are conjectural classes in the first place is because he wanted to show that Starfleet was much bigger than just the Exclesiors, Mirandas, Oberths, Galaxies, and whatnot. The conjectural classes were never supposed to have actual designs attributed to them, and I hope they never do.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Excellent scans
The flat model in image 2 does have a reg of NCC-1404, the other, more Excelsior-type design looks like NCC-1405, or 6. It's difficult to tell.
Permission to use these scans on my site, Monkey?? Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Just to clarify. I do believe that these two 4-nacelle Excelsiors are the same model, and were built with retractable nacelles. Compare:
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Red: You (and anyone else) may feel perfectly free to use any of my scans on your sites or wherever.
Are you sure it's NCC-1404 and not NCC-2404? The first digit kind of looks too thick to me to be a 1. (This is also from looking at not just the scan, but the actual mag page with a magnifying glass...)
Dukkie: I agree that the conjectural designations shouldn't be assigned to known ship designs, as their whole purpose was, just as you said, to an entirely different end. However, I would be thrilled to see some future Encyclopdeia edition or other official source portray such designs. It would be in the same spirit as the Daedalus model Jein built for the Chronology.
-MMoM Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Red: I agree with you. If you look at the nacelles in the "closed" version, they appear to slant inward slightly, whereas they are vertical in the "opened" version. This is exactly what would happen if the struts closed toward one another.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yes, didn't Okuda or someone mention this? The hull telescopes, and as it slides in or out, the nacelles do as well? Am I just crazy???
I know I've heard this before now.
-MMoM Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
It's the X-wing starship! It's even got a raised dorsal bump where the R2 unit is!
Mark
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Well, it would suggest that the Intrepid Class wasn't the first starship type to employ retracting nacelles..
As for the reg issue:
I think it's pretty conclusive. Although I really think it should be NCC-2404
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
It could be !404
USS File Not Found
I reckon the whole moving nacelles/body bit is to do with the Transwarp project. Maybe a 2nd attempt?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
um.. maybe the model was movable because they wanted to show the producers three or four possible configurations, and didnt feel like building three or four models (they'd be like.. "Mr. Nimoy.. you could have a two nacelle ship, or maybe well make it 4 like this.. or long like this.. or long with 4 nacelles like this..").
after all, these models weren't built for technological analysis, they were built as proposals to be shown to producers in offices.
honestly.
[ December 04, 2002, 00:18: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I was watching the rerun of "Unification" tonight, and I paid special attention to the Qualor II depot shots. Looking back, I'm almost certain that the "almost-Cheyenne" ship seen is actually the "X-wing" Excelsior study model in its flat-wing version.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:However, I would be thrilled to see some future Encyclopdeia edition or other official source portray such designs. It would be in the same spirit as the Daedalus model Jein built for the Chronology.
Unfortunately, unless the ships were designed by Okuda, I wouldn't have too much faith in anyone else designing them based on the attributes of their registry numbers. Case in point: Michael Jan Friedman (not one of my favorite Star Trek novel writers) has a new Stargazer book series. In these books, he states that as of 2340 or whatever, the Stargazer is a brand new ship, while the prototype for the New Orleans class is a design that's a has-been. We know this to be utter nonsense, of course. But this just goes to show that I'd rather have the conjectural designs stay that way.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
MM:
quote:I was watching the rerun of "Unification" tonight, and I paid special attention to the Qualor II depot shots. Looking back, I'm almost certain that the "almost-Cheyenne" ship seen is actually the "X-wing" Excelsior study model in its flat-wing version.
I thought everyone knew it was this 4-nacelle Excelsior (or 'X-Wing') ship. It's quite clear, I for one never thought it was anything else.
There used to be a theory that it could be the Cheyenne upside-down, but that was before we saw the picture of the study model.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: um.. maybe the model was movable because they wanted to show the producers three or four possible configurations, and didnt feel like building three or four models (they'd be like.. "Mr. Nimoy.. you could have a two nacelle ship, or maybe well make it 4 like this.. or long like this.. or long with 4 nacelles like this..").
after all, these models weren't built for technological analysis, they were built as proposals to be shown to producers in offices.
honestly.
No shit, Sherlock. We are in a forum dedicated to the fantastic technologies of a television show set 300 years in the future. So why come in here and say that!?! *rolls eyes* we are talking about the TREK TECH. gah.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I think he was trying to say that the model was built to represent two different ships (depending upon whether it was collapsed or extended), rather than one ship w/ moving parts. Sherlock.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Yeah, so what? We are discussing the Trek-explanations not the real-life explanations.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
im saying that, in the Trek universe, maybe there is only one configuration for the model, and the rest are just behind the scenes bullshit?
as if this model ever got this far.. it might have well have been shitcanned for all the scrutiny its getting.. it wasnt actually featured in anything more than a few seconds footage at a few pixels wide? and from this we are to presuppose all sorts of magic-technological wonders from it? crikey...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Yeah, so what? We are discussing the Trek-explanations not the real-life explanations."
Okay, I guess I'll have to use the Explanation for the Thinking Impaired:
There... are... two... ships.
If any of those words need defining, just let me know.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
OK, now we are talking about behind the scenes stuff - why would the build 2 nearly identicle ships and just move the nacelles 2mm one way or the other?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
No, Andrew, that's not what TSN meant. There weren't two nmodels built. There was only one. But the model might have been able to expand & retract both its hull and it's nacelles, thereby giving the appearance of two different ships even though they used the same model.
If anyone really cares, I've always been of the opinion that the model was just broken, & Okuda glued the nacelles back on differently than its original configuration. There's really no need for the hull to expand or contract either; Nilo Rodis wanted the ship to be that long on purpose. I believe it was just someone here who used Photoshop to adjust the hull, back when Okuda gave us the pic.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Well - I too think it is just a broken model.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The thing that suggests telescoping for the four-naceller is the fancy boxlike superstructure at the aft rim of the saucer: it apparently has an opening at the back, one that nicely matches the contours of the aft hull features that would move into the front hull if the hull did telescope.
Similarly, there's plenty of room for the X-pylons to move, in the form of hull openings at the hinge points. Why would these openings have been left in the aft hull if not to allow for this movement? The other models with comparable level of detail did not have unexplained holes anywhere, even when it apparently took some effort to create a wholly enclosed hull of the required shape.
I still suspect a "transformer" trick was built into these models to accentuate the technological superiority of the Excelsior to the Enterprise. *And* I'm happy Nimoy didn't give the go-ahead for that particular trick...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: The thing that suggests telescoping for the four-naceller is the fancy boxlike superstructure at the aft rim of the saucer: it apparently has an opening at the back, one that nicely matches the contours of the aft hull features that would move into the front hull if the hull did telescope.
Similarly, there's plenty of room for the X-pylons to move, in the form of hull openings at the hinge points. Why would these openings have been left in the aft hull if not to allow for this movement? The other models with comparable level of detail did not have unexplained holes anywhere, even when it apparently took some effort to create a wholly enclosed hull of the required shape.
I still suspect a "transformer" trick was built into these models to accentuate the technological superiority of the Excelsior to the Enterprise. *And* I'm happy Nimoy didn't give the go-ahead for that particular trick...
Timo Saloniemi
Maybe it's a shuttlebay? Assuming I'm looking at the right hole.
Posted by Micromaniac (Member # 546) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
