# Thought Experiment: 22 foot TOS Enterprise



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

A number of our forum participants are engineers or have an engineering background. I had this wild idea of what IF someone wanted to make a 22 foot TOS Enterprise model? Would it be possible? Would the armature be aluminum or steel as opposed to the wood used in the 11 footer? What kind of stresses would the engines and saucer impose?

It's a thought experiment. Any thoughts?


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Wow, that sounds like some piece of construction! I'm no engineer but I think it'd have to be made of a light material like aluminum or fiberglass for a thin shell with a steel or aluminum armature within. Still, there would possibly be sag after time, unless the nacelles were supported externally somehow, such as with cables. Both of the 11' studio model's nacelles appeared to sag a bit after a while. This can be seen when comparing pics of the newly constructed pilot version to the later, production version, as in this one from StarTrekHistory dot com:


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

There are plenty of materials one could use that wouldn't sag.

The questions would be the budget and how heavy it could be.

Heavy steel pipe wouldn't sag, but the model might literally weigh a ton. You could make it light and sag proof with composites but that would cost a lot more than steel.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

No offense Proper2 but it's hard to tell if the production E has sagging nacelles because neither pic is taken from the same angle.
As for the reason for this thread, even though I'm not an engineer I do think it's possible to build a 22 ft. E. In fact I even believe it is possible to build a full size starship with present day materials.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

irishtrek said:


> No offense Proper2 but it's hard to tell if the production E has sagging nacelles because neither pic is taken from the same angle.
> As for the reason for this thread, even though I'm not an engineer I do think it's possible to build a 22 ft. E. In fact I even believe it is possible to build a full size starship with present day materials.


Well, the 2 pics are taken at close enough angles (in fact, for all purposes, nearly identical angles) to indicate to my eye that the nacelles of the later model are at a slightly "sagging" position in comparison with the early model. I work in an industry that for me began as a production artist who dealt with aligning things squarely, and not to toot my own horn but I have a very good eye for things like that.

I would think that it would indeed be possible to build a 22 footer. The trick would be to maintain integrity of the weak areas over time.


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

A model this large would have enough room in the nacelles to store counterweights, so the cantilever could be evened out. The nacelle struts would be beefy enough to bear that additional weight, but the nacelles would have to be done as fiberglass castings-- very thin castings. And that means molds, which in theory could be done in plaster.

Scott


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

22 feet? Wouldn't this all be for naught if one didn't have the room? Unless it's gonna be yard ornament....?

Just curious.

Carl-


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

hal9001 said:


> 22 feet? Wouldn't this all be for naught if one didn't have the room? Unless it's gonna be yard ornament....?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Carl-


Yeah, I think this is just a "thought experiment," and nothing more.


----------



## modelmaker 2001 (Sep 6, 2007)

I'd go for the material the we are using at work for the back frame of the James Web Space Telescope that we're building at work right now: carbon fiber. It's much lighter than either aluminum or steel and it's not subject to warping due to the moderate temperature changes we experience on Earth (as opposed to deep space).


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The problem with either fiberglass or carbon fiber is they cannot be repaired if broken. If a carbon fiber bike frame gets broke it cannot be repaired so it has to be replaced and carbon fiber is expensive, so why not aluminum reinforced carbon fiber??? If on a bike frame an aluminum tube inside the carbon fiber could keep it from getting cracked and make it patchable. Hope all that makes sense.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Why 22'?

Just cause its 2X studio scale?

Why not make it 1/32.
Then you can use the existing bridge model and the upcoming Galileo models.

I actually have a translucent plastic dome that is the right size for a 1/32 scale Bussard collector.

I always thought about doing a 'repair' diorama where a technician is doing a space-walk around the dome.
Perhaps out of a shuttle.


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

I used to build parade floats & full size puppets for Disney, this size & larger.
It could be FG or carbon. FG would be used for a permanent installation, or float mounted display due to the weight of fiberglass, & would have to be a steel frame to support the weight. If carbon was used as a covering, 2024 aluminum could be used as the frame. Carbon being almost as strong as the FG, is 1/4 the weight, but 10x the price.
The big problem with using aluminum, is the flexibility & I really think the frame would have to be steel. Especially in the pylons, I think it would be extremely difficult for aluminum to support the weight of an 11' nacelle, carbon or FG. 



irishtrek said:


> The problem with either fiberglass or carbon fiber is they cannot be repaired if broken. If a carbon fiber bike frame gets broke it cannot be repaired so it has to be replaced and carbon fiber is expensive, so why not aluminum reinforced carbon fiber??? If on a bike frame an aluminum tube inside the carbon fiber could keep it from getting cracked and make it patchable. Hope all that makes sense.


As a structural support, no neither FG or carbon can really be repaired, but as a skin with a supporting structure, they are both easily repaired. For a build this large, there would have to be a full supporting frame.


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

irishtrek said:


> The problem with either fiberglass or carbon fiber is they cannot be repaired if broken. If a carbon fiber bike frame gets broke it cannot be repaired so it has to be replaced and carbon fiber is expensive, so why not aluminum reinforced carbon fiber??? If on a bike frame an aluminum tube inside the carbon fiber could keep it from getting cracked and make it patchable. Hope all that makes sense.


This was my thought, an aluminum frame with durable material like fiberglass. It could even be done in panels so if a panel got damaged you wouldn't have to worry about replacing the whole section. It's hard to argue aztek or panel lines don't exist at the 22 foot scale haha


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Since the outer skin can be light-weight molded plastic, isn't it just making sure the skeleton is welded to support itself so the skin can hang off of it?

Like:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=14t58cn&s=8

The inner saucer support can be like a bicycle wheel has spokes.

With LEDs. magnetic wire, and small but powerful motors for the nacelles, it would not have nearly as much heavy stuff in it like the original did.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

OK, being a thought exercise (and I approve of things like this, you can learn a lot  ) I would think the starting point has to be, what is such a thing to be made for? What is the 'end use'? That is, is it meant to be a permanent display like in a museum or one's mansion? Should we expect it to be an 'artifact' that would not be maintained, just dusted? Or is it meant to be a working filming model? Or an attraction where maintenance is possible and even expected? The ultimate use helps define materials, I would think. It also would define how it would be mounted.

It would likely be instructive to consider how large models used to be made for the movies c.f. Refit Enterprise. 

One example may be, it seems people are limited to 'plastic kit' thinking, how to make Nacelles as giant tubes. Why? Why not frames, stringers and then panels, either plastic or metal. 

That's my contribution so far.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Good thinking, guys! Okay, let's say it is to be a film model and cgi has not come as far as it has, making such models necessary. This would likely mean maintenance is necessary and that the model would be expected to last for a, oh, what say? 20 year run?  1/32 is fine, but I did just double the 11 foot parameter for the sake of getting the thought experiment started.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

OK, I think that gives some boundaries to explore. 

I would suggest exploring the entire model being made of frames, stringers and panels. This allows for ease of maintaining internals, the ability to create 'battle damage' or variant ships, even 'pulling off the skin' from a section to show the crew effecting repairs in some area. 

I assume the size is such for something akin to 'Magicam' use, where the model may have actors digitally superimposed upon it.

*sigh* the more I ponder this, the more I wish it would exist.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

If we are talking a physical filming model, we would have to account for more than just the model size, as there would be other factors to consider:

- Budget (what can we afford to spend)

- Needs of the story (are there feature-specific details or operations called for in the script?; i.e. lighting, opening doors, hatches, etc.)

- Practicality (Size of shooting stage, camera track, camera rig, background (blue or green screen), lighting (if your model is too big for the stage, camera, track and background, it can seriously limit the amount of shots, angles and distances you can represent)

- Photography (How much lighting is necessary to illuminate the model and the background (blue or green screen); What aperture and exposure length is necessary to hold maximum depth-of-field (focus, sharpness) over the entire model for a shot?; How long does it take to shoot a single pass for an average shot on this model, and how many passes are required for a complete shot?) [Time = money]

- Materials (What amount of structural strength is necessary for the model to maintain it's shape over time, withstand the gravity-defying angles it may be subjected to for different shots, not be too heavy so as to bend or break the mount that it is affixed to for a shot - especially at odd angles; Be able to be moved around, possibly even carried or lifted by hand without damaging the surface; Can it withstand the heat from the lights or variations in temperature without warping, buckling, cracking, melting or even catching fire, etc.)

- Weight, mobility, storage, transportation (How do you get the model to the shooting stage from the model shop where it is built; How do you move it around on the stage - by hand, forklift, hand truck?; How do you store it when it is not in use?; Is it "solid", or can it be disassembled and reassembled?)

- Stands and mounts (How large a stand does it need?; How many mounting points and electrical connections for different angles?)

- Maintenance (is the model 'sealed' or can the interior be accessed to replace faulty wiring, lights, motors, etc.?)

As you can see, there are many factors that can affect how a physical model is designed, the size, weight, etc. No one in the industry has just stated "The model will be such-and-such a size" without first taking into account all of these factors. 

This is why there are often several different sizes of models made of a particular ship, or even several of the same size, for practical mounting points, lighting, accessibility, pyrotechnics, special details or functions, etc.

Something to consider.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I think much of that is covered by the basic premise/mission statement, i.e. "building a 22 foot Enterprise", don't you think? 

I mean, because "it's gonna happen" that presupposes all the external factors of use, space and cost are on board. 

Mounting is clearly an issue. It would be desirable to be as unobtrusive as possible, and multiple mounting points may not be practical given the likely weight of the beast. I would think once it's built, it's pretty much staying where it is.

I doubt it would be practical to try and hook it to a Lydecker flying rig, for one example.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

charonjr said:


> Good thinking, guys! Okay, let's say it is to be a film model and cgi has not come as far as it has, making such models necessary. This would likely mean maintenance is necessary and that the model would be expected to last for a, oh, what say? 20 year run?  1/32 is fine, but I did just double the 11 foot parameter for the sake of getting the thought experiment started.


I was responding to this statement with the practical considerations that a production would consider when designing and implementing the construction of a miniature that meets these parameters. I'll now bow out of this discussion.

Sorry to rain on the fantasy parade.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Trek Ace said:


> Sorry to rain on the fantasy parade.


If it's a fantasy, then you can complicate it and build it with a real interior so you can look through the windows.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Trek Ace said:


> I was responding to this statement with the practical considerations that a production would consider when designing and implementing the construction of a miniature that meets these parameters. I'll now bow out of this discussion.
> 
> Sorry to rain on the fantasy parade.



No, no, no, man, it's all good. Stay and chat.

What I was simply saying was some of those considerations you state are obviously null due to the subject concept itself. Clearly, the trigger has been pulled. The 'model' will be 'built'. Money must have been allocated, space arranged, etc. 

So the money doesn't matter, but it must be assumed the budget IS finite and cheaper is better. Fantasy elements are out. No anti-grav, no nanotube carbon fiber gamma welded boron composites. 

Heck, it could be balsa wood and doped fabric, as long as it photographed well. Dunno about how well that would hold up however.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

If the 22-foot nature is the only constraint, then I'd drop the filming miniature idea and think of it as an amusement park attraction or lawn ornament for Bill Gates.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I think we now need to start pondering the build of a 1/1 Enterprise. Gotta think big! :thumbsup:


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

Proper2 said:


> I think we now need to start pondering the build of a 1/1 Enterprise. Gotta think big! :thumbsup:


A 1/1 Enterprise that is built as a hotel attraction. Wouldn't that be a hoot. Wasn't that one of the "fantasy ideas" they explored when they were first designing "Star Trek-The Experience" at the Vegas Hilton? (Too bad it closed, I thought it was pretty neat.)


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

*Strut Analysis*

I would use a truss structure inside the strut/pylon. I agree with CaptCBoard that counterweights would be needed to balance the nacelle weight fore and aft of the strut. That would alleviate having a twisting moment about the strut. 

A truss would give the strength you need, but would conserve on weight. I did some rough calculations for a 22 ft Enterprise (about 1/43 scale):

- Nacelle length ~ 11.5 Ft
- Approx Nacelle weight: 12lbs (about 1lb per ft)
- Approx Strut weight: 4lbs
- Strut Length: 42 in
- Strut Width: 10 in
- Strut Thickness: 2 in

Given the above: you would have about 50-75ft-lbs of torque at the upper end of the strut. See attached diagrams.

NOTE: In the "real world" you would still have the problem of twisting moments about the strut. Since the nacelles would have a tendency to twist off the strut as the ship makes a right (or left) turn. Even though in space you have no gravity (or at least microgravity), inertia still works the same as here on earth. I guess those inertial dampers would need to be fairly sophisticated to keep the nacelles from twisting off during a hard bank left or right (especially at impulse power).


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

LOL, you guys made me laugh! TrekAce, that's exactly what this thought experiment is all about. It is a "fantasy" only in that we're merely looking for answers to a hypothetical product and no one, at least not I, will actually be building it. What this does serve to do is give us insight into the reasons, such as you pointed out, that Desilu had an 11 foot model made. Perhaps that was the best compromise available at the time. We know that the 2001 Discovery was IIRC 54 or 55 feet long. Of course, Kubrick had a movie budget to work with.

Another reason to consider is that often some in the forum express interest in very large scale models: a 60" Excelsior, an 8 ft 1701D, 6 ft Galactica, or, egads, an 11 foot 1701! I daresay that getting a handle on materials science and building techniques, let alone the shear math to realize a design is an absolute necessity in order to proceed with any project.

bccanfield brings up an interesting point about the twisting moment on the upper pylons. I have seen some documentation indicating that the strut was mounted lower on the engine tube than shown in the drawings. I don't know if this lower mounting would alleviate a bit of this stress. Also, the suggestion that the 11 foot engine struts were only one inch thick is very surprising. Having once seen it in the Smithsonian in 1979, it seemed thicker, but when you have a giant 11 foot starship hanging from the ceiling in front of you, you kinda forget about the scale and leap for hero-worship, instead!

I wonder, given that nacelle weight is about 12 lbs in our model, yet presents such a high torque, the saucer might be downright untenable? 

Okay, let's find out what is probable and possible.


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

If you look at some of the NASA footage of the ISS or satellites that have those extended solar arrays, you will see some "wing flap" when they fire the maneuvering jets to do station-keeping. They look downright fragile. Those vehicles are designed to just hang in space and not do any sudden acceleration or deceleration. Even though they are orbiting at 17,000 MPH, its pretty much a constant speed. It would be interesting to get video of those satellites as they break apart when they de-orbit at end-of-life and accelerate into the atmosphere.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

charonjr said:


> A number of our forum participants are engineers or have an engineering background. I had this wild idea of what IF someone wanted to make a 22 foot TOS Enterprise model? Would it be possible? Would the armature be aluminum or steel as opposed to the wood used in the 11 footer? What kind of stresses would the engines and saucer impose?
> 
> It's a thought experiment. Any thoughts?


Personally I think going too big would cause the same problem that going too small does.

It tends to become less believable as a model. 

Even at 22 feet, it would obviously not be big enough to be a 947 foot starship.

Yet by making it as big as 22 feet it makes it harder to step back and take it all in it's entirety.

For filming purposes it might be better, but in person I think it would not be as interesting as a smaller model might be.

I think that 90% of what makes the 11 footer impressive is not so much
her size but her history and connection to something we all care about.

At least with the smooth hull of the original Enterprise. The refit with properly painted aztecing might be a different story,

Assuming you have an extra, empty aircraft hanger lying around that you could have the ability to have 40 feet or so 
of empty space all the way around between you and the model so you could take it all in.

The only issue in being able to do it would be money. Whether it would be desirable or as impressive as you think it might be are other issues. 

I think the smooth hull of the TOS Enterprise might actually look less impressive as you increased the size.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

But as you increase the size, the possibility of 'actual' detailing comes into play. Where the 'skin' is actual, practical panels and thus 'scale' panel lines are somewhat visible. 

I'm no engineer, but it seems to me nacelle twisting can be minimized by the actual construction. Instead of pylons jammed into a hole in the engineering hull, create a 'unibody' construct, the spine of the hull and the root of the pylons being one. Instead of the nacelle being jammed onto the pylon strut have the strut be a unibody cradle that the rest of the nacelle attaches to.

I think people just subconsciously fall into 'this is how it was done on a plastic kit' thinking.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

With enough money anything is possible. If you had skunkworks quality equipment, expertise and budget you could construct a unibody skeleton from a ridiculously light alloy and overlay it with a light but stronger-then-steel carbon fabric and the thing would be both incredibly light and virtually indestructible.

Heck, if you are just dreaming, why not dream big?


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> With enough money anything is possible. If you had skunkworks quality equipment, expertise and budget you could construct a unibody skeleton from a ridiculously light alloy and overlay it with a light but stronger-then-steel carbon fabric and the thing would be both incredibly light and virtually indestructible.
> 
> Heck, if you are just dreaming, why not dream big?


Okay, that's enough for me, my alarm clock just woke me up. :drunk:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Get an F1 team on it? They've got money!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Steve H said:


> I'm no engineer, but it seems to me nacelle twisting can be minimized by the actual construction. Instead of pylons jammed into a hole in the engineering hull, create a 'unibody' construct, the spine of the hull and the root of the pylons being one. Instead of the nacelle being jammed onto the pylon strut have the strut be a unibody cradle that the rest of the nacelle attaches to.


I'm not one either, but if I recall my basic (unfinished) undergrad engineering the problem would not be at the connection (if competently connected); it would be the strut itself that would twist. And an internal truss there, as other have suggested, is all I can think of. Those nacelles would have to be extremely light.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Get an F1 team on it? They've got money!


Or skunkwork's old ATF team! 

I think skunkwork's submission for the ATF contract, using alloys, carbon fiber, and their vertical take-off solution was superior - if I remember that old Nova special correctly, but they couldn't get it under budget. 

Plus I think at one point they had the problem of having used an alloy that was so strong that when they tried to modify a flaw in the design, they found it almost impossible to cut!

John P will correct me, I'm sure if I have any of that info wrong.


Again, as long as we're_ imagining_ it, and _not having to pay for it_, might as well dream big my friend! :thumbsup:


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

This is completely feasible folks, without requiring help from the DOD

While the point of an F1 team has been brought up. Most of the skin rigidity support we did on Disney floats was monocoque, just like F1 cars. Using a gusseted steel tubular box truss with monocoque spars & ribs, there should be enough strength in the pylons to counteract the torque cause by the nacelles. Same in the nacelles, use a small aluminum frame in the nacelle where they connect to the pylons, then monocoque spars & ribs down the length. Areas of biggest weight concern would be the nacelles & saucer, those frames could be aluminum, while the main support structure, neck & pylons would all be steel frames.

I'm not an engineer, but my floats & puppets are still & have been in daily use at Disney California Adventure Pixar Parade since 07'.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

orbital drydock said:


> This is completely feasible folks, without requiring help from the DOD
> 
> While the point of an F1 team has been brought up. Most of the skin rigidity support we did on Disney floats was monocoque, just like F1 cars. Using a gusseted steel tubular box truss with monocoque spars & ribs, there should be enough strength in the pylons to counteract the torque cause by the nacelles. Same in the nacelles, use a small aluminum frame in the nacelle where they connect to the pylons, then monocoque spars & ribs down the length. Areas of biggest weight concern would be the nacelles & saucer, those frames could be aluminum, while the main support structure, neck & pylons would all be steel frames.
> 
> I'm not an engineer, but my floats & puppets are still & have been in daily use at Disney California Adventure Pixar Parade since 07'.


I've no doubt that someone with your skills and enough time and money could pull off a 22 foot version.

The only question for me is whether it would be more impressive to make it bigger, or less impressive to make a version of it that big.

Shear size doesn't necessarily increase one's appreciation for a design.

Especially since you would have to have a ridiculously amount of space to be able to step back and take it all in.

Personally, aside from the errant window misplacement here and there, I think the 5.5 TOS E that they made and produced a bunch of after the Deep Space Nine episode Trials and Tribulations[sp?], was a beautiful size and very well executed.

Now, if one were to build a 32 foot long Galileo TOS shuttlecraft and turn it into a speedboat . . .

that would be something worth going big for!


----------



## orbital drydock (Apr 23, 2013)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The only question for me is whether it would be more impressive to make it bigger, or less impressive to make a version of it that big.
> 
> Shear size doesn't necessarily increase one's appreciation for a design.
> 
> ...


I think for this, bigger is definitely better.

I saw the 11' before the restoration, granted it was hanging pretty far from the floor & in a big room, but it looked small.

Having built a 6' TOS & mapped out plans for an 11'... 22' or a 1/32 would be pretty friggin' cool. There would be sooo many options for interior work, rooms behind all the windows, a turntable in the shuttle bay.

LOL, that would be HIlarious, it'd be like driving a snow plow on a lake!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The only question for me is whether it would be more impressive to make it bigger, or less impressive to make a version of it that big.
> 
> Shear size doesn't necessarily increase one's appreciation for a design.
> 
> Especially since you would have to have a ridiculously amount of space to be able to step back and take it all in.


I must agree with this! I understand the accomplishment of having built something that big--if one is a sculptor or stage contractor, or a float maker! But I think building something small while making it look big is at the heart of modeling and miniatures. No offense but for me a 22-foot model of the E would just be a (hopefully well made) playground ornament that kids could climb on. I cannot view that as a model. The maximum size before the desirable effect is lost for me would be about a 66 inch-er. In fact, I think the 1/350 is the best scale for the E--just big enough to see every detail and not so big where you have to step out onto the adjacent hall to take it all in.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I know that the 11 foot saucer was mounted to its pylon with bolts and was using would with a vacform plastic skin. What I don't know is did they using wood frames and forms around all 360 degrees of the saucer? Was that minimized, then light materials used just to support the skin? The bicycle wheel notion is interesting, but it's designed around support coming from the center of the wheel. Would a similar, but cantilevered version work?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

On the size issue, I think that the purpose of this fantasy is to create something that instills a sense of awe.

So … for me, 22 feet would be too small. I'd go for something about a hundred feet long, hanging in a giant crystal atrium. It would be high enough to avoid sticky fingers, but low enough to feel … looming.

And if it were well-hung (ahem), we might better be able to deal with the engineering issues of mass and moments.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Now I'm thinking a larger TOS ship might get somewhat boring when scaled up. Even using the HD version. Lots of areas of the model are just blank, a huge model seen from up close you would be searching for details instead of just taking them in.

Scaling up I think you would have to add stuff that wasn't on the original model, starting with more windows and access hatches. 

The A refit would be the model to build huge.

Going back to the idea of a shooting model, that has me thinking, with 3D printing I wonder if it would now be cheaper to go back to using models vs. CGI, CGI isn't all that cheap any more, I wonder if anyone has considered going back to models. The fine detail that can be done now should be way cheaper than it used to be.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I actually read somewhere the JJ is shooting new Star Wars movies on film and using practical (aka physical) models to capture the look and feel of the original.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Okay, so.... Looks like a 22 foot Enterprise isn't do-able. At least, other than a few ideas, the topic is caput.

So, let's make a practical approach to building an 8 foot Excelsior or a 1/350 scale 54" (?) model. How would this be done. Would ribs be used to bolt the skin down? Is plank on frame a better approach, or doing a humongous vacform shell? This time, we'll forget tv shows and production schedules and movie budgets. What would we, any one of us, have to do to realize a model of the Excelsior or Enterprise-B?

And, no, TrekAce, this uses real engineering materials and know-how. So please contribute, 'cause this ain't no fantasy.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

charonjr said:


> Okay, so.... Looks like a 22 foot Enterprise isn't do-able. At least, other than a few ideas, the topic is caput.
> 
> So, let's make a practical approach to building an 8 foot Excelsior or a 1/350 scale 54" (?) model. How would this be done. Would ribs be used to bolt the skin down? Is plank on frame a better approach, or doing a humongous vacform shell? This time, we'll forget tv shows and production schedules and movie budgets. What would we, any one of us, have to do to realize a model of the Excelsior or Enterprise-B?
> 
> And, no, TrekAce, this uses real engineering materials and know-how. So please contribute, 'cause this ain't no fantasy.


There was a resin Excelsior done in the past that I know was over 40" long.

John P and a few others here could probably remember who made it and other details about her.

I do recall it had a serious issue with drooping nacelles.

But there are guys here like H. Erickson who are extremely adept at constructing armatures.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

MartyS said:


> The A refit would be the model to build huge.


Oooooooooooh ….. now you're talking. But the Refit, not the A. Gotta have the opal.


----------

