With the kind permission of Andy Probert I am posting an image he put together to show the relative sizes of the starships for TNG's first season. (I typed a label, and there's an extra word...oops.)
Some of the ship details are a little wonky, as this was intended as a size reference only.
Note the original design for the Ambassador class, which is considerably different than the more TOS-ish design that finally emerged in "Yetserday's Enterprise". Andy's design was the basis of the "half-model" seen in the 1701-D's Observation Lounge. Andy also painted the ship as an intended matte element for "Encounter at Farpoint" (it was to be the ship that Admiral McCoy was going over to), but it was not used.
I assume FSV is Federation Science Vessel. All measurements are in feet. O.L. = Overall Length.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
YES! Finally, a good look at that damn not-Ambassador class! I like it more already.
Mark
[ October 22, 2003, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I'd like to note that it looks much more like a TNG refit of an Excelsior Class than anything else... not that that's a bad thing But it still looks like one.
Perhaps the reason why production thought it was alright to use the Excelsior model for VFX?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The proto-Ambassador looks good from the sude but terrible from the front. Did Andy ever make a top view? The saucer looks very oval in the forward (color) sketch but possibly not in the side view.
Still....theres modeling potential there. Probably have to make the ship of a later vintage than intended though: it looks far too modern.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Here's my quick take on it. I'm sure Kris could do a better version...
WEll, yeah....can you extrapolate a top view for me?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Well I could extrapolate what the saucer and nacelles would look like, but I'm no good at figuring out how wide the sec hull would be and where the pylons would go etc. I suppose if I really tried I might be able to but I don't have the time to do that anymore...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd probably just increase the Excelsior's secondary hull (for the shape if not the details) by 60%, make the connecting neck more triangular in shape than the Ambassador's and the nacelles appear to be the same as used on the Amby but at a stretched out X-Y ratio. The nacelles arc away from the secondary hull like the Connie Refit rather than the Excelsior or the Galaxy. That's a bit odd. At a guess, I think it has a slightly oval saucer: in between the Excelsior's circular one and the Galaxy's elipse. Mabye I'll just buy a mis-scaled Excelsior models and chop it into something that looks right....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Incidentally, this sketch confirms the Oberth's size of 120 meters.
[ October 22, 2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
...And has lots to say about the BoP size, too - probably for its first appearance in the second season.
Mark
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So much for VFX scaling equaling new classes of KBOP, huh?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Aren't the sizes for the BOP, Oberth, and Excelsior the same as on the STIII chart?
Does this chart also suggest that the name "Ambassador" was already attached to the class this early in production?
A member of the GEC did schematics of the proto-Amb based on the wall sculpture. I'll see if I can dig it up.
Andy said he didn't have a direct overhead view of the thing. I imagine he has some isometric views of it in some of his sketchbooks, though. He he has tons of this stuff and not all of it is easily accessible.
I don't think this was drawn for the second season. In fact, I'm guessing it was drawn very early on in the first season, since he did do the Ambasassador class painting for "Encounter at Farpoint".
As to that page where those guys extrapolated a shape from the wall model, my gust instinct says it's VERY off, especially in regards to the engineering hull.
I will be pestering Andy for more info on this ship until the truth is revealed!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That extrapolation from the wall sculpture is fugly.
Reeeeeaaaaalllly fugly.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by J: I'd like to note that it looks much more like a TNG refit of an Excelsior Class than anything else... not that that's a bad thing But it still looks like one.
I strongly disagree. IMO it's only the effect of the apparent similarity from the direct side view that makes it look like an Excelsior refit. A quick glance at Probert's painting shows that it's really very different! I don't think it has anything in common as far as actual assembly goes. Plus, the saucer is way too big to be put on a refit design -- even the TMP refit of the original Enterprise didn't expand the saucer by THAT much!
I may just be imagining this, but I recall reading somewhere that they wanted to use Probert's exact design for the Enterprise-C, but the modelmakers were too rushed at the time that they had to simplify it in a few ways to make a quicker build -- which basically explains the cylindrical secondary hull.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The Probert painting seems to show that Ambassador has a pretty wide secondary hull. I think Jeff Robb's extrapolation reflects that, perhaps even being a bit narrow. Just going from the side view, I would probably draw the secondary hull fairly slim in the Excelsior style, but the painting makes it look fat.
But, yeah, MrNeutron, try to some more info from Mr. Probert!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The secondary hull is wide at the front (like the Galaxy) but slim from the side overall (like the Excelsior). I dig that dark grey "collar" around the nav deflector.....kinda like the dark area under the Refit Excelsior's deflector.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
What is the length of the Reliant listed on the chart? I can't work it out.
Interesting that the correct length for the (proto) Ambassador is 525m and not the commonly published 526m. It's similar to how the Galaxy is commonly thought to be 641m but is meant to be 642.5m.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dax: What is the length of the Reliant listed on the chart? I can't work it out.
Looks like 765', but I'm not 100% certain.
quote:Interesting that the correct length for the (proto) Ambassador is 525m and not the commonly published 526m. It's similar to how the Galaxy is commonly thought to be 641m but is meant to be 642.5m.
I'm not sure why you make mention of this, as it's not really a big deal. One meter and one-and-a-half meters is nothing, IMO. Only way it would really make much of a difference is if you were trying to make detail prints/plans. Plus, I was thinking that the stated length of the E-D was 642m...?
Oh, well. No biggie, right? Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Surely the Reliant length reads 765' not 965'
765' would make it 233m which is correct (+/- a meter or so).
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Yep, you're right. I edited the above just before you hit send on yours, apparently. I'm not home and using a crappy monitor, so things are pretty hard to make out. I miss my flat screen with crystal clear quality. :-(
And don't call me Shirley.... ;-)
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Ah yes, 765' -- makes sense now. Thanks, guys.
The single meter differences in published lengths is mostly insignificant, but those discrepancies shouldn't exist when exact feet lengths are known.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Aren't the sizes for the BOP, Oberth, and Excelsior the same as on the STIII chart?
BTW, does anyone have a picture of this chart?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Though I love several elements of the Not-Ambassador, I've gotta say that I'm glad that wierd pylon connection scheme (to the secondary hull) didn't make the cut when the ship was finally built. It's great insofar as being an evolutionary step, but it just looks funny.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Yeah, the Not-Ambassador or the "I Can't Believe It's Not the Ambassador" makes me feel squeemish... there is something strange about it.
It is also a TOO smooth transition between the Exxy and the Gal - I mean there are more differences between the Connie and the Exxy.
I still like the Ambassador class we saw. Maybe the N-A could be a step between the Exxy and the Ambass? Or the Ambass and the Gal?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
If you must, then surely "Excy"?
I do sorta agree though, about it being too smooth a transition. After all, the Constition doesn't look anything like the Excelsior (comparitively).
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
I'm not too keen on the pylons myself as I see them in the sketch and painting, but I'm also suspecting that part of the design didn't get too refined in at the stage of Encounter at Farpoint.
You have to consider that this Ambassador design was whacked together in a big hurry, specifically to make the wall model and as the basis of a quick matte for a single long shot of the ship. I'm betting if they had decided to actually show the design in the 1st season it would a got refined a lot. I got to go through Andy's sketchbooks and saw how much the Galaxy class "tweaked" between the initial concept approval and the on-screen result. My guess is the Ambassador would've gotten similar treatment.
OTOH if it ever showed with a hull wide enough for the pylons to go straight up into the nacelles as it sort appears in the painting, I'd have had to hit Andy over the head with the model. hahaha
![[Smile]](smile.gif)