# TOS Bridge Blueprints - whos are best?



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Even though I've got a few set of blueprints for the TOS Enterprise bridge, I was wondering. Whos or what set is the most accurate dimensionally?


Thanks.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I think it's generally accepted that Michael McMaster's are the most accurate. They certainly seem quite close from my own investigations. 

They do intentionally deviate from the set in one particular: The sensible addition of a secondary exit. He installs a door to the left of the main viewscreen. I believe he moves the status display that was originally there to one side of the alcove leading to the door.

Mark


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

This detail was based on Gene Roddenberry's intention to add a second exit to the bridge. This second exit was represented in the animated series at Roddenberry's request, and so it is reflected in Michael McMaster's blueprints.


----------



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

So who else made bridge blueprints other then McMasters?

Can't imagine them being any more detailed or accurate, or not relying on McMasters' work to a great degree.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Who else? Franz Joseph, in the original Tech Manual.


----------



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

Yep. That one should have been obvious.
But a "few" would imply more then two sets.

How many sets were you talking about ClubTepes?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

The best ones show the turbolift directly behind the captain's chair, inline with the viewscreen! *ducks*


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_griffin said:


> The best ones show the turbolift directly behind the captain's chair, inline with the viewscreen! *ducks*


I _suspect_ that just such a plan was drawn initially by Jefferies. I'd love to know if anyone's seen it.

Mark


----------



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

MGagen said:


> I _suspect_ that just such a plan was drawn initially by Jefferies. I'd love to know if anyone's seen it.
> 
> Mark


I talked to Majel Roddenberry the other day over coffee.
She says she was standing next to Jefferies while he drew it that way. 

She had a copy of those plans, but they were stapled to that 3 foot Enterprise model Gene loaned out...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ LOL! And Rod threw those prints into the swimming pool. Not much left of them.


----------



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

^^^Of course if Majel ever really had such a set, Lincoln Enterprises would have sold 100,000 illegal copies. Then Gene would have gone around to conventions talking about how he begged Paramount not to go after fan produced stuff "for the good of Trek fans everywhere."

Would have had nothing to do with wifey selling tons of stuff with no license, not to mention tons of stuff with FJ's copyrighted "Federation of Planets" design on it.

Majel's intimated several times that Gene loaned the 3 footer to some friend, yet she won't or can't name them. Apparently no one can remember the name of the person they "loaned" what they knew to be an extremely valuable prop(okay, maybe much more valuable today, but even then, they knew it was valuable).

Seems kind of hard to believe. Also that she knew it was loaned to a friend, but has no idea of who.

I've often wondered if this prop was ever formally given to Gene or not. Paramount seemed to be able to get back one of the Klingon props when they wanted it.

Anyhow, I wonder if whoever has it now could sell it?

If they tried and it turned out they couldn't, I'd also like to see who got the retrieve it, Majel or Paramount?


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

I thought that UFP logo appeared on one of the episodes, on some sort of flaglike thing. I have no real idea which episode, maybe the one with Gorgon the Friendly Lawyer?


----------



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

I'm talking about the one with the starfield and two faces, which is on the cover of the FJ Tech Manual.
I think the one you are talking about just had the letters UFP.

I believe that one of TMP prop guys used FJ's logo in homage.
Later, after realizing that they didn't have the copyright to it Paramount came out with a virtually identical one that used olive branches instead of side views of humanoid male/female faces.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Yep. That one should have been obvious.
> But a "few" would imply more then two sets.
> 
> How many sets were you talking about ClubTepes?


I've got another set that compares the TMP Bridge and the TOS Bridge.

Though after looking more closely at that set, it APPEARS (covering my legal a$$) that the TOS portions are copied from the McMaster plans.

SOoooooo..........
Throwning a big monkey wrench into all the bridge arguments.....

I've been building a Constitution class ship in Lightwave based on the Alan Sinclair blueprints.

Following in the footsteps of people like Phil Broad I got curious about fitting the actual bridge dimensions into the exterior dimensions.
So my conclusions suggest that the set will fit into the space alloted
EXCEPT
The turbolift alcove protrudes ouside the exterior hull dimensions.
This even after lowering the bridge past what would commonly be accepted.

So, as much as I would like to accept Ziz's idea that the bridge is alligned with the CL of the ship and that a turbolift 'slides over' into the position that we see on screen, I can't see that happening without increasing the size of the ship overall (which would blow JohnP's mind).

I agree with Phil's argument that the ship SHOULD be the larger dimension
due to the fact that the rim of the saucer is not thick enough to support two full decks. (Unless you were doing 'Being John Malcovich' and had a deck 7 1/2).
BUT, if we increased the size of the ship then the turbo-lift protrusion on the exterior would not line up with the turbo-lift location on the set.

So I have a new take (new to me) that I'm sure would not be very popular.
Have the bridge be lined up with the CL of the ship and slide over the turbo-lift protrusion the 36 degrees to the port side of the ship.
So yes, it would minutely change the exterior, but in my mind, would be more likely if such a ship were really to be built.


Funny how putting the turbo-lift in the position its in due to the fact that it made for some good camera framing, would create such a debate so many years later.


----------



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

What's this, ClubTepes?

Is there some dispute as to whether or not the bridge should face forward or off-center? 

Does anybody perhaps have an opinion on this? Maybe MGagen or Captain April have spent some time thinking about this...

Any chance you two guys might have an opinion?


----------



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

^^^
Okay! Bad joke.

Question withdrawn.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

ClubTepes said:


> Following in the footsteps of people like Phil Broad I got curious about fitting the actual bridge dimensions into the exterior dimensions.
> So my conclusions suggest that the set will fit into the space alloted
> EXCEPT
> The turbolift alcove protrudes ouside the exterior hull dimensions.
> This even after lowering the bridge past what would commonly be accepted.


It's amazing how a little disciplined 3D work can bring home this point so clearly, isn't it?.



> So I have a new take (new to me) that I'm sure would not be very popular.
> Have the bridge be lined up with the CL of the ship and slide over the turbo-lift protrusion the 36 degrees to the port side of the ship.
> So yes, it would minutely change the exterior, but in my mind, would be more likely if such a ship were really to be built.


Or you could do what I proposed many moons ago. If you must have a forward facing bridge, why not provide an exterior construction to contain that sideways shuffle of the turbolift. In the images that follow, I have added just such a pathway. Since I've made it lower than the main tube, it is not all that obvious from the usual viewing angles. One might almost be able to claim it was always there, but we never noticed it. 



























I do not really advocate this solution, but if you must rotate it -- why not do it this way?

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Okay! Bad joke.


I liked it! (Though I notice it has been edited. Maybe it was even better originally.)


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Is there some dispute as to whether or not the bridge should face forward or off-center?


Yes.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Does anybody perhaps have an opinion on this? Maybe MGagen or Captain April have spent some time thinking about this...


YES.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> Any chance you two guys might have an opinion?


Chances are 100%, but just not the same one.

:devil:


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

MGagen said:


> It's amazing how a little disciplined 3D work can bring home this point so clearly, isn't it?.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sadly, its a problem that no one will ever agree on.
The more I think about my take on it, the more I like it. Move the exterior turbo-lift housing over 36 degrees and forget the sliding thing. This way, when they went to do the refit, all that they had to do was to add another turbolift shaft. 
EITHER WAY one would have to add to the exterior to cover the turbo-lift alcove.


----------



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

Hmmm...
Not sure what you mean by "sliding."

I like this idea's look(given the alternatives) but would suggest that perhaps what is now considered to be the turbo-lift shaft "protrusion" could be re-interpreted as an alcove covering a spiral staircase emergency exit that could be hidden behind a swinging wall to the left of the TOS turbolift.

I think the McMasters' addition of a TAS era secondary emergency exit to the bridge made sense. But if it's location was never shown on TOS or TAS I don't see why that couldn't be a better location.

Your thoughts, MGagen? Aridas? Anyone else?


----------



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

BTWay, I always thought that TMP's turbolift positioning,
which MGagen was touching apon when he mentioned "Move the exterior turbo-lift housing over 36 degrees and forget the sliding thing. This way, when they went to do the refit, all that they had to do was to add another turbolift shaft."

... always thought that that TMP positioning was kind of an admission that the bridge should have been facing forward all along, and now they were correcting the exterior of the new and improved refit.

Thoughts guys?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^ I agree with you on that one!

I like the idea of the bridge being offset, however, as FJ shows it to be. It's the only practical solution.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Hmmm...
> I like this idea's look(given the alternatives) but would suggest that perhaps what is now considered to be the turbo-lift shaft "protrusion" could be re-interpreted as an alcove covering a spiral staircase emergency exit that could be hidden behind a swinging wall to the left of the TOS turbolift.


If you leave it the main turbo shaft, you can also make it a "hard dock" point which allows the sharing of turbolift cars with a space dock or spacestation. The bridge turbocar is at its station and thus is not blocking the tube. (Just a thought.)



> I think the McMasters' addition of a TAS era secondary emergency exit to the bridge made sense. But if it's location was never shown on TOS or TAS I don't see why that couldn't be a better location.


Actually, something very like it was shown in TAS. McMasters merely has it recessed, rather than flush -- thereby allowing him an alcove wall to hang the displaced status board on.

Mark


----------



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

^^^ Thanks for the TAS info, MGagen.
I only saw a few episodes as a kid.
Have been waiting to see if it, TAS, would ever be released on DVD.
Hate the idea of buying videocassettes, which is the only way it's offered right now.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> BTWay, I always thought that TMP's turbolift positioning ... was kind of an admission that the bridge should have been facing forward all along, and now they were correcting the exterior of the new and improved refit.


It was an admission that it _should_ have faced forward, _*but didn't*_ by reason of someone "shuffling the deck." It was Jefferies' way of fixing that problem, along with eliminating the absurd "only one exit" problem.

One has to wonder, though, since the "problem" occured before the filming of _The Cage_, why he never had the exterior detail fixed when he had the chance. The model was updated at least two times before the series went into production. The easiest time would have been when they removed the bridge and turbo shaft in order to cut them down to "production" size. All it would have taken was to rotate it 36 degrees when they put it back on.

I doubt if we'll ever know the answer to that one...

Mark


----------



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

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ^^ I agree with you on that one!
> 
> I like the idea of the bridge being offset, however, as FJ shows it to be. It's the only practical solution.


Practical, yes I'd have to agree.
Desirable and logical... not so much.

But that wasn't FJ's fault, and I think there's an interview of him at trekplace.com in which he says that the filming director changed the bridge(though not the turbolift's basic positioning, that was offset from the very first episode) three times in the first two years.

FJ said that he was told(probably by Roddenberry, he doesn't say who but 90% of his original trek contacts time was spent with Roddenberry) that the bridge was set where it was by the filming director solely for dramatic effect. Which suggests that Jefferies semi-modular design and his external model's attributes were sometimes intentionally ignored by whoever the "filming director" was.

Jefferies was a brilliant artist and designer, but he apparently wasn't consulted on every decision.
Or if he was, keeping everything concretely consistent was not always given top priority when the directors made the final decisions.


----------



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

Here's an "on-point" quote from the 1982 Paul Newitt interview with FJ that I was talking about:

"Q2 
Newitt: ...errors?
FJ: Oh, they were endless. A typical example: in the first two years of production, the bridge was changed four times...that is, it went through four major changes...but they went unnoticed until you started to analyze the slides. I imagine, during that period, we looked at something like 100,000 film clips. Eventually you caught on, you could catch the error once you started to examine the slides in detail. They're supposed to have...I think you call it a continuity producer...or something like that. The idea is, whenever you finish filming the day before and pick up the next sequence, someone is there to be sure the actors were wearing the same clothes they wore the last time you shot, that they're wearing the same ring on the same finger, and their hair is combed the same way, and all this stuff. I assumed the TV series had it. And I assumed that whatever the format was as they were writing the scripts, and shooting the scenes, that someone was watching for continuity. If the script said the door opened in a certain room last week, it opened on the same room this week. It turns out the TV series had no such person.
If you ignored the story as you were watching an episode, and looked for detail as you were watching it, you suddenly discovered these errors and mistakes went on endlessly. Now there were many mistakes that were due to production necessities. In other words, the camera and the producer had to be in a certain place shooting with a particular camera angle, and that caused errors. I mean, those...there are mistakes that you can ignore because they're reality...it's either that or you don't shoot the scene. But take another type of error which is a major mistake. There are not military vehicles, to my knowledge, that are designed with the commanding officer positioned so he sits with his back to an exposed entry. Yet the captain of the Enterprise sat with his back to the elevator. The reason being, that was where the action of the episode was coming from, and that was the camera angle the producer wanted.
In order to do this, he was shooting at a 36-degree angle to the captain's station and the bridge, so he could include the screen over to the right and the elevator over to the left. When you come to the layout of the bridge, because the elevator is on the centerline of the Enterprise in its external views, you discover the bridge is skewed off 36 degrees from the centerline. But no ST fan ever put these two things together, you don't see it until you try to make an actual layout of the starship. As I said, you just go from one error to another. "


----------



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

continued, less "on-point" but still interesting FJ quote... another topic or two touched apon...

"But no ST fan ever put these two things together, you don't see it until you try to make an actual layout of the starship. As I said, you just go from one error to another. However, I'm digressing; we were talking about the things the ST fans wanted to see that never appeared in the TV series.
I started to make a layout of the ship but since the three-views didn't jibe with each other, the first thing I had to go was to generate an accurate set of loft lines. With these completed, I now had a set of line drawings in which I could make a cut at any plane, any deck level, and any cross-section. I now began the actual layout drawings of the ship and did this in the same manner it would be done in an aerospace design environment. But now I had another problem. In the TV series, and in Whitfield's book, they had stated certain (unseen) things were on certain decks as "throw away" lines for the actors. The set that had been constructed for the TV series also had a central hall with a certain degree of curvature, a specific relationship between the rooms and the corridor, rooms to the doors, and the arrangement of rooms such as the medical center, and Kirk's room. For economy, the captain's room was redressed by switching door panels, etc., to make Spock's room, and redressed again to make Yeoman Rand's room and so on. I had the plan of the stage layout from Whitfield's book so that I was able to recreate the size of the set. They gave me the basic positions and also the basic views and arrangement of the engineering section. From here, I had to work it into the spaceship they had drawn.
Now, I'll digress for another minute. When the Enterprise was first sketched in the design as it now appears, but not the arrangement used in the TV series, it was originally intended to be a vehicle about 180 feet long, with an eight-man crew riding in the cab on top. The cab was a long cab, like an Aerocommander airplane, with the pilot and co-pilot sitting in front, and the rest of the crew sitting behind with viewscreens in front of them, like in an airplane cockpit. In the course of getting from there to the basic design for the TV pilot, they talked with academic people who decided that when man ventured into space he would still be a gregarious animal, as has been proven by our astronaut program. On any extended voyage like this, of months or years, the survival potential of a few number of persons is very poor. The survival potential, of an interacting colony, like you had in the TV series, is much better. So, without changing the proportions and external arrangement of the design, they increased the length to 947 feet, raised the number of the crew to 430, and took off on shooting the TV pilot. You can figure it out from there."




Sorry for the long long posts. But I think the info in the posts were important.

It is the only non-thirdhand, independently verifiable evidence we have of anyone, in this case Franz Joseph, where anyone was shown to have directly asked the principal original people involved with TOS about the bridge issue.

According to FJ the producer, who I believe was Roddenberry, wanted that camera angle for dramatic effect.

Basically, there was no thought given at the time to the effect of the decision to the logical layout of the ship.

This info may seem self evident.
But I think it's the most important quote of someone who actually asked about this issue, and wasn't just a quote of an old staff member guessing about what they thought Jefferies was thinking without having ever specifically researching the issue.

According to FJ, the bridge was envisioned as facing front, the producer just didn't think or care at the time that the side positioning of the turbolift would cause a logical layout problem, or external prop conflict. 

When asked directly about the bridge offset by FJ, the original principals couldn't explain it other then to say that the angle was needed for dramatic effect, and they either didn't consider it or had to ignore it for dramatic effect.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

"There are not military vehicles, to my knowledge, that are designed with the commanding officer positioned so he sits with his back to an exposed entry. Yet the captain of the Enterprise sat with his back to the elevator."

So, considering the physical model, did FJ favor having the bridge face almost rearward (or at least straight to one side) so that the lift wouldn't be behind the captain?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> The more I think about my take on it.... Move the exterior turbo-lift housing over 36 degrees


As long as we're revising what was actually seen onscreen, I revise the interior to match the exterior: let the lift doors be directly behind the con.

As to the military disadvantage of this...
1. the E is really not a military ship
2. technology should be able to effectively prevent unauthorized lifts (and passengers) from getting anywhere near the bridge. (Such technology is perfectly feasible but sure limits story potential.)
3. remember MGagen's point about it being like the cabin of an airplane, where entry is from the rear.


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> "There are not military vehicles, to my knowledge, that are designed with the commanding officer positioned so he sits with his back to an exposed entry. Yet the captain of the Enterprise sat with his back to the elevator."
> 
> So, considering the physical model, did FJ favor having the bridge face almost rearward (or at least straight to one side) so that the lift wouldn't be behind the captain?


I think he probably would have favored that, though he knew it wasn't designed or envisioned that way.

Also, I'd like to point out something that someone else brought up on that point.

Being very oldschool, FJ was thinking of a naval vessel's design. However as he himself stated when talking about the way the ship was originally envisioned:

"When the Enterprise was first sketched in the design as it now appears, but not the arrangement used in the TV series, it was originally intended to be a vehicle about 180 feet long, with an eight-man crew riding in the cab on top. The cab was a long cab, like an Aerocommander airplane, with the pilot and co-pilot sitting in front, and the rest of the crew sitting behind with viewscreens in front of them, like in an airplane cockpit."

Well this first sketching of the Enterprise conceptually refutes FJ's mode of thinking. The ship was originally thought of as being designed in a way similar to a large aircraft - not a naval vessel.

Not too many aircraft - military or otherwise - have side entrances to their cockpits!  

Ideally, as the sets progressed and the crew compliment and ship size changed they would have updated the exterior to simply move the "protrusion."

But they didn't. 

How one deals with that when trying to model or draw an accurate compromise between interior and exterior details is the question.

My purpose of quoting FJ was to simply confirm that someone DID specifically ask about why this incongruity existed, and the answer they gave him was that it was done for the dramatic filming effect of having the entrant to the bridge, side view of the Captain and helm, and also the viewscreen - all in one shot.

Anybody who now wants to find a way to justify the interior and exterior just has to deal with it.

It can be dealt with by setting the bridge off-center, jimmying with the exterior in a manner like or similar to the way MGagen did in his post above, you could just make the ship ridiculously larger(would one of you 3D of draftsmen wizards please figure out how much bigger, regardless of how ridiculous?), OR, you might sink the bridge almost completely into "B deck," a solution Aridas Sofia has proposed and plans to draw someday.

Any progress on those plans, Aridas?


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Bravo! Much good meat in this thread!

I do want to address some things from the FJ quotes:

First of all, I want to express my admiration for him and what he contributed to our little game. Copies of the first printing of the Booklet of General Plans and Technical Manual are prized items in my collection. Just wanted to make it clear I'm not bashing him when I take issue with a couple of points.




> There are not military vehicles, to my knowledge, that are designed with the commanding officer positioned so he sits with his back to an exposed entry. Yet the captain of the Enterprise sat with his back to the elevator.


Thanks, USS Columbia, for pointing out my earlier post mentioning the aircraft cockpit analogy. Jefferies was an aeronautical man and knew that every aircraft commander sits with his back to the door.




> I started to make a layout of the ship but since the three-views didn't jibe with each other, the first thing I had to go was to generate an accurate set of loft lines.


The problem here was not with Jefferies' 3-view drawing -- it is reproduced with major lens distortion in TMOST. The views agree quite well on the original artboard. FJ also missed the boat bigtime with the Hanger Deck. He failed to notice that the drawing in TMOST was of the forced-perspective miniature set. It is not an orthographic drawing. I can't blame him too much -- I studied it myself for decades before I realized this. But I did notice the converging lines once I started to analyze it in order to make a 3D model. I wonder how he could have corrected the diminishing-height observation corridor without making the connection. I believe it comes from not giving enough credit to Jefferies and company. It's the same with the 3-view: he just assumed it was sloppy work and moved on -- and in doing so, he missed the boat.




> ...the bridge is skewed off 36 degrees from the centerline. But no ST fan ever put these two things together...


Actually, I noticed it as soon as I got my copy of TMOST, back in 1971 -- and that was well before anyone had heard from FJ. I think this was pretty commonly understood by the real "fans" back then (yes, there were geeks back in the 70s  ).




> When the Enterprise was first sketched in the design as it now appears, but not the arrangement used in the TV series, it was originally intended to be a vehicle about 180 feet long, with an eight-man crew riding in the cab on top.


I believe FJ is telling us something true and reliable here.




> So, without changing the proportions and external arrangement of the design, they increased the length to 947 feet, raised the number of the crew to 430, and took off on shooting the TV pilot. You can figure it out from there.


Here he misses a step. He seems to be unaware that there was another intermediate design. I believe the 8-man crew version was merely the original "concept." This may even pre-date the saucer, cigar and nacelles configuration. What I _do_ know is that the construction plan used to build the 3-footer called for a 540 foot ship. This is the design that was enlarged "without changing the proportions and external arrangement." But Jefferies seems to have put a reasonable amount of careful thought into how to make it work at the larger size.




Chuck_P.R. said:


> My purpose of quoting FJ was to simply confirm that someone DID specifically ask about why this incongruity existed, and the answer they gave him was that it was done for the dramatic filming effect of having the entrant to the bridge, side view of the Captain and helm, and also the viewscreen - all in one shot.


I'm not sure I ever saw a shot like that in the whole run of the series. It would take a very wide angle lens. Perhaps he was talking about a "pan."

Thanks, Chuck, for the FJ quotes. They are indeed fertile grounds for discussion.

Mark


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Lets not forget the visual clues in TOS as to the orientaion of the bridge.
First of course is the opening shot of 'The Cage' where the camera tracks right into the bridge from space. While not perfect my impression is that the bridge is in line with the CL.
Secondly, though we know that the view screen isn't a 'window' there is a rectangular detail on the exterior of the bridge.
And finally in 'Requiem For Methuselah', when the Enterprise is reduced in size to a table centerpiece, Kirk looks into the bridge through the front of the ship, not off to the side.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

ClubTepes said:
 

> Lets not forget the visual clues in TOS as to the orientaion of the bridge.
> First of course is the opening shot of 'The Cage' where the camera tracks right into the bridge from space. While not perfect my impression is that the bridge is in line with the CL.


This sequence is so far off in all spatial dimensions as to be worthless in determining bridge orientation. Even the orientation we're interested in changes throughout the scene. It is also the taller dome, not the later series configuration. Even if it did tell us something, it doesn't apply to the series bridge.




> Secondly, though we know that the view screen isn't a 'window' there is a rectangular detail on the exterior of the bridge.


This strikes me as tenuous at best. It has as much to do with the orientation of the bridge, as which side the gas cap is on determines which side of a car has the steering wheel.




> And finally in 'Requiem For Methuselah', when the Enterprise is reduced in size to a table centerpiece, Kirk looks into the bridge through the front of the ship, not off to the side.


I must say you've stumped me here. What can this possibly have to do with it? As I recall the scene, Kirk looks at the front of the ship. We then cut to an interior shot of the main view screen with Kirk's mug on it. Conclusion: Kirk is looking at the front of the ship and his image is being picked up by the forward scanners. Unless I am missing something, this tells us nothing about the orientation of the bridge.

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

In Requiem, I do get the impression that Kirk is trying to peer inside his ship, into the bridge. This is ridiculous considering how well established it is that the viewscreen is NOT a window. Perhaps Kirk was peering into those two little "windows" on the deck 2/3 area (which FJ labels as the torpedo tubes). Of course, it's been a long time since I watched Requiem. I'll have to dig out the video and have a look.

Paul


----------



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

Think I mentioned your earlier cockpit analogy somewhere above in the quote, MGagen. It was an apt point. 

Note about the viewscreen not being a window. It may have originally intended to be both. I believe the first "A deck" did indeed have a rectangular detail on the very front. Though at the very least it would have to have been a optical port only as a last resort...

I have a pic of it somewhere, but am not home right now. Maybe someone else can post it...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I like the idea of a last-resort viewport with a holographic view "screen" normally projected in front of it. This for a next-generation era ship, though (where the holo technology is more advanced/ubiquitous).


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> I like the idea of a last-resort viewport with a holographic view "screen" normally projected in front of it. This for a next-generation era ship, though (where the holo technology is more advanced/ubiquitous).


There may or may not be a last resort viewport on the Enterprise E.

We do know from Nemesis, though, that the bridge definitely faces forward by that point in time. Just ask the helmsman who got sucked out the front of the bridge. :tongue:


----------



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

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Think I mentioned your earlier cockpit analogy somewhere above in the quote, MGagen. It was an apt point.
> 
> Note about the viewscreen not being a window. It may have originally intended to be both. I believe the first "A deck" did indeed have a rectangular detail on the very front. Though at the very least it would have to have been a optical port only as a last resort...
> 
> I have a pic of it somewhere, but am not home right now. Maybe someone else can post it...


Here is that pic I was talking about earlier...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Here is that pic I was talking about earlier...


Note the "wide screen" aspect ratio of that gray block. It is even less likely that was intended to coincide with the viewscreen since the main viewscreen was much closer to old-style TV proportions.

I don't think there is any connection.

Mark


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I just figgered it was a large floodlight to light up the name and registry number on the top of the saucer.


----------



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

^^^If you insist, Captain A...
eh, I mean MGagen...










Just kidding!!!
Wanted to see if I could turn that Avatar a little redder then it is now! 

BTWay, any hide or hair of Phil to be seen lately?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> I just figgered it was a large floodlight to light up the name and registry number on the top of the saucer.


I like this idea! Perhaps Warped9 could add such a concept to his "never seen TOS scenes" work.

Paul


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

My, my, my, y'all have been busy in here...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> ^^^If you insist, Captain A...
> eh, I mean MGagen...
> 
> Just kidding!!!
> Wanted to see if I could turn that Avatar a little redder then it is now!


 :lol: You should see my avatar over at TrekBBS:










Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to upload it as an avatar here, so I use the Mozilla one.

Mark


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

uss_columbia said:


> In Requiem, I do get the impression that Kirk is trying to peer inside his ship, into the bridge. This is ridiculous considering how well established it is that the viewscreen is NOT a window. Perhaps Kirk was peering into those two little "windows" on the deck 2/3 area (which FJ labels as the torpedo tubes). Of course, it's been a long time since I watched Requiem. I'll have to dig out the video and have a look.
> 
> Paul


While I think WE all undrstand that the front viewer is not a window, the IMPRESSION is definatly Kirk is looking into the bridge (there is definatly the reverse of the viewscreen shot with his face on it to his POV of the crew on the bridge frozen in time) and that possibly the director of that episode kind of skipped over some of the tech rules wanting the audience to know that the ship on the table was the 'starship'. The way to do that being Kirk looking in and seeing crew. The most logical:freak: and reconizable place to have kirk look in being the bridge.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

It would seem that Kirk was actually looking through the transparent top dome into the bridge, but the angle shown from inside makes it look like he's staring through what had long been established as a one-way viewing screen.

Maybe a crane rental for a high-angle shot was out of the budgetary range for that show.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Just to be annoying, try this one out for size...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Cool! How big does the ship have to be in order to support this?


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

That's Captain April's attempt to have a forward facing bridge. Here's his latest version with an overlay of the actual Desilu set drawing and the proper dome size indicated. I have added a critique which calls out the problems with the drawing as he has rendered it. (From a thread over at TrekBBS Art Forum).

Mark


----------



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

^^^ Okay, so I have to ask the same question that Perfessor Coffee has, if it were drawn properly(I know there are problems), how big would the ship have to be?


----------



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

P.S. Anybody hear from Phil?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Being the person who, I believe, was the first to suggest (in CRA's thread anyway) translating the bridge forward here are a couple of images the demonstrate the spirit of the two methods in the larger context of the first few decks:

Rotated and sunk down.









Rotated and translated forward with a larger dome (now in truth to fit the equipment that's behind the screens and walls the dome would have to be made bigger than what you see here but you get the idea).









And let's not forget the "original".


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And here's something that Mark has mentioned at one time (or another)...


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

MGagen said:


> That's Captain April's attempt to have a forward facing bridge. Here's his latest version with an overlay of the actual Desilu set drawing and the proper dome size indicated. I have added a critique which calls out the problems with the drawing as he has rendered it. (From a thread over at TrekBBS Art Forum).
> 
> Mark


Pretty much nails him down... This is why I think it's time to let go of this idea, and accept the reality that the bridge - for whatever reason - doesn't face forward as we would like it to.

If he wants to completely redesign the ship - that's fine, but his version is NOT the true Starship Enterprise no matter how he tries to justify it...


----------



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

^^^ Perhaps, Starcruiser.

But if everything WERE drawn correctly, then shrunk.
How big would the ship have to be?

Those are some really nice renders, Four Mad Men.
For symmetry(and perhaps for an emergency exit in the TOS era) how about one with the two side angled protrusions, ala' the motion picture?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

And I thought the major fight was going to be over the arrangement of Engineering...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> And I thought the major fight was going to be over the arrangement of Engineering...


That can be accommodated as well, I'm sure! :devil:


----------



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

Captain April said:


> And I thought the major fight was going to be over the arrangement of Engineering...


No fight.

As long as everybody clearly discusses their positions, there's no need for anyone to consider it a fight.

There are several ways to address the bridge issue, I'd just like to understand them all as well as possible before deciding which one I like best.

After all, there is no right or wrong answer here. There are lots of variables and ways to solve the on-screen inconsistencies. It's up to everyone to decide for themselves which one makes the most sense to them.




P.S. On the engineering issue, is there some dispute over this? :devil:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> On the engineering issue, is there some dispute over this? :devil:


I think he's referring to the fact that Captain April has posited TWO separate and nearly identical engineering rooms in the secondary hull. Sort of like siamese twins joined at the big glowing conduit thingy. This is his way of accounting for minor alterations carried out on the set during the run of the show. Although why such alterations are not more reasonably explainable as alterations made to one and the same engineering room I can't make out.

If you want to discuss it with him, go check out the "Let's try this again" thread at TrekBBS's art forum. Good luck, I've washed my hands of it.

BTW, everone. I'll be out of town for a week, so don't think I don't love you anymore. :roll: 

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> No fight.
> 
> As long as everybody clearly discusses their positions, there's no need for anyone to consider it a fight.
> 
> ...


Just a case of me being a smartass and accounting for the major differences between engineering in the first and later seasons (and yes, there are *major* differences, not the least of which is the size of the room itself and the sudden appearance of the dilithium crystal converter assembly in the middle of the room). I just figured that during the first season, the forward room was used as Main Engineering and the aft room was just a lot of equipment and technical doodads. Second season, however, the aft room was designated Main Engineering, got spruced up some, the partition at the back of the power transfer manifold (those big glowing orange tubes) was moved from aft to forward, and the forward engine room was now more concerned with the operation and maintenance of the ship's fusion reactors and power distribution. Later designs and refits combined these operations into one, much larger, facility.

Now, getting back to the bridge, here's my solution to the issue, the key of which is invoking the bit that many have touched on, but almost nobody really appreciated the implications, namely that zoom-in shot in "The Cage". It wasn't until Aridas said that "it wasn't the same bridge" that things started to really click, because so many of us were operating under the assumption that it _was_ the same bridge, just with a smaller outer dome. I set up the groundwork for the final answer, that all they did was sink the puppy down, but never really followed up on that. I just kept trying to fit the set inside a dome that was clearly too small, to keep it up on the top.

The thing is, we never had another one of those zoom-in shots to establish that the bridge was *still* all the way on top. All we can say with certainty is that it was up there when Pike was in command. We can be pretty sure it was still up there in "Where No Man Has Gone Before", since the ship still had that taller dome.

Here's where we get to the key to solving the whole mess. The big mistake we've all been making, from Franz Joseph to yours truly, is starting the process in the middle, i.e., trying to make the bridge fit _*into the production version,*_ when we should be starting off with the pilot version, then working out way forward.

Here's how it all fits together with the taller dome:










Then, with the 2266 refit, we get this:










The bridge remains centered *AND* facing forward, continuity is adhered to, and we can finally put this matter to rest.


----------



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

Again, I realize that this question has been asked 3 times by myself and Perfesser Coffee. But we have yet to get an answer.

How big would the ship have to be to accomidate this shrunken bridge?


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Captain April said:


> Just a case of me being a smartass and accounting for the major differences between engineering in the first and later seasons (and yes, there are *major* differences, not the least of which is the size of the room itself and the sudden appearance of the dilithium crystal converter assembly in the middle of the room). I just figured that during the first season, the forward room was used as Main Engineering and the aft room was just a lot of equipment and technical doodads. Second season, however, the aft room was designated Main Engineering, got spruced up some, the partition at the back of the power transfer manifold (those big glowing orange tubes) was moved from aft to forward, and the forward engine room was now more concerned with the operation and maintenance of the ship's fusion reactors and power distribution. Later designs and refits combined these operations into one, much larger, facility.
> 
> Now, getting back to the bridge, here's my solution to the issue, the key of which is invoking the bit that many have touched on, but almost nobody really appreciated the implications, namely that zoom-in shot in "The Cage". It wasn't until Aridas said that "it wasn't the same bridge" that things started to really click, because so many of us were operating under the assumption that it _was_ the same bridge, just with a smaller outer dome. I set up the groundwork for the final answer, that all they did was sink the puppy down, but never really followed up on that. I just kept trying to fit the set inside a dome that was clearly too small, to keep it up on the top.
> 
> ...


Though I still - somewhat - disagree, this is probably the MOST acceptable idea. Even makes a little sense - sinking the bridge down for better protection.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Again, I realize that this question has been asked 3 times by myself and Perfesser Coffee. But we have yet to get an answer.
> 
> How big would the ship have to be to accomidate this shrunken bridge?


The traditional 947 feet is quite acceptible.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

What's the diameter of the bridge interior? Based on measurement of the 1/1000 PL E, I get 50' for the widest point of the first pilot dome (outside diameter). Your drawing labels a width well inside that as being 50.5' diameter. On your picture, 282 pixels = 50.5 feet. Widest point of dome is 300 pixels or 54 feet. That's a 4' (almost 10%) discrepancy, not too bad. (I measured with a ruler with 1/32" divisions. I couldn't find my calipers for a more accurate measurement.) But your Bridge is only pixels radius (from outer edge of viewscreen cavity to the center point) or 33 feet in diameter. Is that the right size for the bridge? And, is the turbolift the correct diameter and set the correct distance from the bridge proper? Or would it poke out into space even in a 54' dome? (I'm sure MGagen has analyzed this before, but I don't recall the results.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Argh! (Moving stinks!) I can't find the box that has my McMaster blueprints or even my SFTM. (I moved in a long time ago but have yet to unpack everything.)
I did find TMOST, but it doesn't have scale or dimensions on either of its bridge diagrams. If one knew the size of Stage 9, that would do, but I don't. (Too bad MGagen's on vacation. He has the answers I need.) Well, I'm off to trekbbs to dig through the old thread to find this info...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

uss_columbia said:


> What's the diameter of the bridge interior? Based on measurement of the 1/1000 PL E, I get 50' for the widest point of the first pilot dome (outside diameter). Your drawing labels a width well inside that as being 50.5' diameter. On your picture, 282 pixels = 50.5 feet. Widest point of dome is 300 pixels or 54 feet. That's a 4' (almost 10%) discrepancy, not too bad. (I measured with a ruler with 1/32" divisions. I couldn't find my calipers for a more accurate measurement.) But your Bridge is only pixels radius (from outer edge of viewscreen cavity to the center point) or 33 feet in diameter. Is that the right size for the bridge? And, is the turbolift the correct diameter and set the correct distance from the bridge proper? Or would it poke out into space even in a 54' dome? (I'm sure MGagen has analyzed this before, but I don't recall the results.)


The interior bridge set, by the best estimates available, was approximately 30 feet in diameter. How much the turbolift extended beyond that is a point of major debate, mainly because the actual dimensions of that alcove are a matter of interpretation. For my purposes, I'm going with the original layout done by Matt Jefferies, which would put the back side of the turbolift car roughly five feet beyond the bridge proper (I'm of the concerted opinion that Mike McMaster did the same thing Franz Joseph did in laying out his version, namely stretching that alcove out in order to reach that cylinder on the back of the dome).

As for the size of the dome, going by the Alan Sinclair drawings, the bridge dome clocks in at 6.3 inches, which translates to a shade over 44 feet. That's the production version, however, and as has already been demonstrated by a year of almost constant bickering, trying to fit the interior inside the production version of the bridge dome is an exercise in futility at best (it's wide enough, but too short). 

*However,* extending the lines of the production bridge downward to recreate the dimensions of the pilot bridge dome (actually the same piece, only before they cut the bottom third off), and it fits in a forward-facing orientation with no problem at all (turns out that missing third is just enough to accomodate a forward facing interior...it also takes into account the presumed history of the ship). And that's with my estimate of the bottom of the pilot bridge dome of a little less than 50 feet. If it actually comes in at 55 feet, all the better, but I'd be a little cautious about trusting measurements taken off of the PL model, only because any inaccuracies in the model, while well within the acceptible range for an 11" model, could be drastically off when blown up a thousand times.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Here's the final version of the bridge, btw...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Greetings from Colorado. I'm online briefly courtesy of my Brother-in-law's laptop.

A word about Captain April's "solution" to the bridge layout: Anyone can make a pretty picture showing the bridge rotated to forward facing with plenty of room for access corridors and extra turbolift tubes if they are willing to ignore the scale of the components. If you stretch and squeeze at will to make things fit you can shoehorn almost anything into that dome. This is Captain April's way.

For example, only in his drawings will you find that 25.25' + 25.25 = 45.5''.

If you want to know how the actual sets fit into the actual model, you should look elsewhere.

Also, if McMaster fudged his blueprint to get the turbolift to fit into the tube on the exterior, then so did someone in the art dept. at Desilu (probably Jefferies himself). The later bridge drawing (the one showing it in situ on stage nine) depicts the exact same alcove and offset as the McMasters blues. What is more, the intersection of the alcove edge with the control panel edge matches what was seen onscreen -- unlike the preliminary writers guide drawing that April relies on. This was already brought to his notice over on his own thread on TrekBBS, but of course, he ignores it and moves ahead with his doodling.

I'll have more to say when I get back to home base on Saturday night.

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

As I stated elsewhere (before you bailed out to go on vacation), the 25.25 is a typo and was intended as a benchmark that I didn't use anyway, so it's irrelevant. The 45.5 figure is what I'm using.

Considering the bit above about the pilot bridge possibly being 50 feet in diameter, I'm being rather conservative in my estimate.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I have never had problem with the bridge being rotated 36 degrees. If you watch the show, whenever the ship was hit and rocked along the Z-axis (Errand of Mercy, The Changeling, The Doomsday Machine, etc.), they always rotated the ship (camera) from axis of the elevator shaft forward to the right of the main view screen, or 36 degrees off from the Communications station and main viewscreen centerline. It wasn't necessary for sickbay, the officer's and crew quarters, or the corridors and brig to face directly forward, so why would it have to be such a big deal that the bridge MUST face directly forward?

If that's the way it was depicted on the show, then that's good enough for me. 

It just isn't necessary to always have to "fix" EVERYTHING.

P.S. If Jefferies said the ship is 947 feet long, then that's good enough for me, too.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I just so happened to watch _The Changeling_ the other day and was watching for how the actors/camera behaved when they we're hit. I myself saw no indication that they accounted for an offset bridge. Although by the same token (assuming the strike hit them dead on), I saw no indication of a non-offset bridge either. If anything the "motion" indicated an offset in the other direction. But I guess you can't read too much into that as you never see any external shots to compare against the internal ones.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Captain April said:


> The interior bridge set, by the best estimates available, was approximately 30 feet in diameter. How much the turbolift extended beyond that is a point of major debate, mainly because the actual dimensions of that alcove are a matter of interpretation. For my purposes, I'm going with the original layout done by Matt Jefferies, which would put the back side of the turbolift car roughly five feet beyond the bridge proper (I'm of the concerted opinion that Mike McMaster did the same thing Franz Joseph did in laying out his version, namely stretching that alcove out in order to reach that cylinder on the back of the dome).


I'm with MGagen on the size of the alcove issue (two or three posts up).




> As for the size of the dome, going by the Alan Sinclair drawings, the bridge dome clocks in at 6.3 inches, which translates to a shade over 44 feet. That's the production version, however, and as has already been demonstrated by a year of almost constant bickering, trying to fit the interior inside the production version of the bridge dome is an exercise in futility at best (it's wide enough, but too short).
> 
> *However,* extending the lines of the production bridge downward to recreate the dimensions of the pilot bridge dome (actually the same piece, only before they cut the bottom third off), and it fits in a forward-facing orientation with no problem at all (turns out that missing third is just enough to accomodate a forward facing interior...it also takes into account the presumed history of the ship). And that's with my estimate of the bottom of the pilot bridge dome of a little less than 50 feet. If it actually comes in at 55 feet, all the better, but I'd be a little cautious about trusting measurements taken off of the PL model, only because any inaccuracies in the model, while well within the acceptible range for an 11" model, could be drastically off when blown up a thousand times.


I never said anyting about 55feet. I extrapolated your 25.25 radius mark well within the widest point of the pilot dome to state that I thought YOU were indicating 54 feet. I measured (somewhat crudely) 50' on the PL. As to scaling the PL, if I had used my calipers and measured to the .001", I'd be willing to scale up with more confidence: I trust the model dimensions to be within a few thousands (scaled up to full size that's a few inches, no biggee).

As to sinking the bridge partway into deck 2, I agree wholeheartedly. It matches Jefferies' cutaway drawing in TMOST. I hadn't thought about how on the pilot version, the bridge wasn't sunken at all and was sunken when the dome size was decreased, though. Good call. Can someone think of a plausible treknical reason for lowering the dome? (Hopefully something better than "improves warp dynamics" or "a bit harder to shoot at" please.)

Paul


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

"A bit harder to shoot at," is a pretty big plus, considering we're talking about the bridge.

As for the turbolift issue, note that the Jefferies drawing that Mark keeps citing is the one least likely to be precise with regard to the exact dimensions of the bridge set itself (it's part of the big overview of the layout of Stage 9 at Desilu, which was drawn to show where all the sets were in relation to each other, and not a layout of the bridge itself).

Until someone produces the actual construction blueprints, the exact proportions of the turbolift alcove is a matter of opinion.

So, you'll pardon me if I give a little more weight to _this_ Jefferies picture...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

For those who are interested, here's the next stage beyond the bridge in my little project...










Anything beyond this point is for another discussion thread...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> As for the turbolift issue, note that the Jefferies drawing that Mark keeps citing is the one least likely to be precise with regard to the exact dimensions of the bridge set itself (it's part of the big overview of the layout of Stage 9 at Desilu, which was drawn to show where all the sets were in relation to each other, and not a layout of the bridge itself).


You have it exactly wrong. There are two very good reasons why the soundstage drawing is likely MORE accurate to the overall bridge dimensions:

1) It is undeniably a drawing of the set after it was rebuilt and updated for series production, since it depicts the set in its place on Stage 9. The TMOST drawing which you've used in most of your doodles is from the Writers' Guide and likely (as the visual evidence suggests) a _preliminary_ sketch of the bridge.

2) Since the overall purpose of the soundstage drawing is precisely to indicate how much room is taken up by the standing sets, it is quite likely a VERY good indicator of the overall dimensions of the set. A director planning camera and lighting set-ups would not want to find out on the day of shooting that he can't maneuver his equipment where he wants it. If the soundstage plan is not accurate in showing the size of the sets _then there is no reason for it to have been drawn in the first place_ -- and I think we all know that a TV production art department doesn't just waste its time on worthless busy work.



> Until someone produces the actual construction blueprints, the exact proportions of the turbolift alcove is a matter of opinion.


Judging from your track record of scorning very well documented evidence when it stands in your way, I seriously doubt even the construction blueprints would have much influence on you.

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

You're the one putting more faith in a drawing that just by its very nature is more likely to be less accurate than one done of _only_ the bridge. Besides, as you pointed out yourself by posting that pic from "The Cage" over on TrekBBS, the basic contours of the bridge didn't change from the time it was initially built for the pilots and when they rebuilt it for the series.

In any case, I'd suggest taking a look at one with a date on it. Specifically, the hardback version of "Inside Star Trek" by Justman & Solow, page 114, a less refined version of the picture I posted earlier, dated *5/13/66*. The bridge set was originally built in late '64, and was used again in '65 for the second pilot.

In other words, that drawing is anything but "preliminary."

Now who's doubting primary sources?

BTW, for those who are wondering why a few of us doubt Mr. Gagen's choice of artwork, here's the whole thing...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Looking at the two alternate sets of Jefferies bridge drawings, the substantial difference is the position of the inner part of the turbolift alcove (and the panels on either side of the main viewer). In the bridge-only drawing, these start about 1/3 of the way from the front of the adjacent console "countertops" whereas on the stage 9 drawing, the innermost parts of the lift alcove appear to start about 3/4 of the way from the front of the consoles (and the panels adjacent to the main viewer appear to start about 2/3 of the way from the front of the consoles).

The shape of the alcove also differs. On the bridge-only drawing, we see an extra "step": circumferential surface, radial surface, another circumferential surface (the extra step), then the angled surface leading toward the wall with the door. On the stage 9 drawing, the extra step is absent: circumferential surface, radial surface, then directly to the angled surface leading toward the wall with the door.

It should be a simple matter to look at onscreen evidence to see which drawing is supported (if either).

Here are some interesting caps from trek5:

(They're from The Corbomite Maneuver. I figured with Uhura opening hailing frequencies every two seconds, we should see lots of shots of her station, hopefully with the lift alcove visible) 

http://trek5.com/caps/tos/03_corbomite/pages/03_corb_006.htm
(shows clearly the shape of the alcove: no extra step (though the shadows suggest a curve or two-angle wall leading to the wall that contains the door)

http://trek5.com/caps/tos/03_corbomite/pages/03_corb_014.htm
(shows the alcove where it meets the engineering station)

http://trek5.com/caps/tos/03_corbomite/pages/03_corb_102.htm
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/03_corbomite/pages/03_corb_131.htm
(great views of the whole alcove, shows where it meets the consoles: appears to be about 3/4 of the way from the front of Uhura's console, clearly shows that there's no "extra step" in the alcove)

http://trek5.com/caps/tos/03_corbomite/pages/03_corb_105.htm
(shows where the alcove meets the engineering station "countertop": about 3/4 of the way from the front of it, also clearly shows that there's no "extra step" in the alcove)

http://trek5.com/caps/tos/03_corbomite/pages/03_corb_153.htm
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/03_corbomite/pages/03_corb_193.htm
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/03_corbomite/pages/03_corb_222.htm
(more pictures showing the absence of the "extra step" in the alcove, some also showing where the alcove starts relative to the consoles)

So... which drawing more closely matches what we've seen onscreen? The stage 9 drawing, definitely! (at least at the time of The Corbomite Maneuver). There's no "extra step" in the alcove walls in the drawing or on-screen evidence, but there is in the other drawing. The alcove begins 3/4 of the way back on the consoles in both the on-screen evidence and the stage 9 drawing, but it appears further toward the center of the bridge in the other drawing.

While the bridge-only drawing may not be "preliminary" per se, it is certainly the less accurate of the two Jefferies bridge drawings in TMOST. The onscreen evidence makes this abundantly clear.

(Since I also mentioned the difference between where the panels adjacent to the viewer meet the consoles, here are a couple of shots of those, too:
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/03_corbomite/pages/03_corb_010.htm
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/03_corbomite/pages/03_corb_061.htm)


Paul

P.S. Some time ago, someone (MGagen, if I remember right) suggested that the bridge-only drawing's alcove might have been the way the bridge/lift would have been in a 540' ship. The date CRA gives would not support that, though, considering that the rescale had already taken place before '66. Also, I'd expect a preliminary drawing to have the lift directly behind the con (though some personal bias affects my expectation  )


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Hmm. I just noticed a difference between the alcove "front" in The Corbomite Maneuver vs. The Ultimate Computer. In Corbomite, it's well behind the top-front of the console screens; in Ultimate Computer, it's still behind but not as far so. Did it change during the course of the series? I guess so, at least a bit.

Corbomite:
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/03_corbomite/pages/03_corb_193.htm
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/03_corbomite/pages/03_corb_222.htm
(top of alcove "front" well behind top of station displays)

Ultimate Computer:
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/53_ULT/pages/53_ult_109.htm
(top of alcove front appears further forward than before)

Sloppy placement of wild section? Or deliberate change? Or optical illusion?

Going back to the Cage:
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/00_CAGE/pages/00-cage_024.htm
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/00_CAGE/pages/00-cage_048.htm
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/00_CAGE/pages/00-cage_031.htm
(placement looks same as Corbomite)

Note: in the 2nd corbomite and the 1st cage pics, the flat part of front looks wider than in other shots. Just an illusion from the angle?

2nd pilot:
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/01_WNMHGB-r/pages/01_WNMHGB_024.htm
(same as Cage and Corbomite)

When was the set converted such that all sections were wild? Post-corbomite perchance?

More shots from ultimate computer (season two):
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/53_ULT/pages/53_ult_146.htm
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/53_ULT/pages/53_ult_160.htm
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/53_ULT/pages/53_ult_177.htm

Another season two ep (Mirror, Mirror):
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/39_MM/pages/39_MM-044.htm

Season Three (Enterprise Incident):
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/59_EI/pages/59EI-053.htm
http://trek5.com/caps/tos/59_EI/pages/59EI-088.htm

Additional season one eps:
Arena: http://trek5.com/caps/tos/19_ARENA/pages/19_arena-045.htm, http://trek5.com/caps/tos/19_ARENA/pages/19_arena-050.htm
City on the Edge of Forever: http://trek5.com/caps/tos/28_CITY/pages/27_city_018.htm


It sure looks like they moved the alcove a bit, perhaps when they upgraded the set to be all wild, in any case not before start of season one nor after end of season two, most likely right between season one and season two.


Paul


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Re: which Jefferies drawing is more accurate, don't forget that Jefferies went to the trouble of producing a highly detailed model of that set. It's featured on several pages of the Star Trek Sketchbook (The Original Series). 

Someone with decent image manipulation software could overlay the two drawings on the model and see which agree. Odds are that the two that agree are the most accurate (if any agree).

(Granted, the purpose of the model was not to be precise but rather to let the directors visualize and plan the shots. However, before spending countless hours on the model, I expect that MJ would have made sure his proportions were correct. Of course, one could argue that he just followed his stage 9 drawing (right or wrong). However, the model includes features not in the drawing, e.g., the auxiliary control room set.

Here's a scan of the bridge area of the model.
http://vpinc.biz/~pjh/images/set0001.jpg

Based on my measurements of pixels:
Ratio of radius of bridge railing to radius of concentric circle that just contains the lift:
model: .389
stage 9 drawing: .381
bridge-only drawing: .406

Note: I used the rail circle because the outer circle is hard to compare: the model and stage 9 drawing extend the pie sections out past the consoles whereas the other drawing does not. The railing is thus a fair common circle to measure.
(Also, I compensated for the distortion of the bridge-only drawing by stretching it until the thing was round.)

Note: model ratio is 2% larger than stage 9 drawing;
model ratio is 4% smaller than other drawing.
The stage9 drawing ratio is only 6% smaller than the other drawing, meaning it doesn't make a huge difference to the needed size of dome. (A 50' diameter dome for the bridge-only drawing's bridge would fit the same as a 53' diameter dome with the stage9 drawing's bridge.)
Disclaimer: my measurements are at best only as accurate as the pixels on these small images; in practice, most dimensions are plus or minus around two pixels, due to line widths and such.

Paul


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Here are the three pictures discussed above, scaled to match each other. (I don't have sw for rotating and overlaying them, though.)
http://vpinc.biz/~pjh/images/b0.jpg
http://vpinc.biz/~pjh/images/b1.jpg
http://vpinc.biz/~pjh/images/b2.jpg


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

From what I've read and observed in the details of the set, the turbolift was never one of the wild sections. Just about everything else was, but the turbolift was firmly attached to the upper deck area.

As for any changes in that section, I'll have to look into that (unfortunately, none of the links you posted connecting to Trek5 seem to be working at the moment, so it might be a while). However, my impression has always been that the Stage 9 drawing has the alcove starting too far back on the panels, while the close-in drawing had it about right. One thing that hurts the Stage 9 drawing is the fact that it's not very detailed (didn't have to be, it was just supposed to show where the bridge was in the soundstage, not serve as a layout of the set piece itself; same goes for that miniature).


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> You're the one putting more faith in a drawing that just by its very nature is more likely to be less accurate than one done of _only_ the bridge.


A gratuitous assertion if ever I heard one. I've demonstrated WHY, "by its very nature" it should be reliable in indicating the _overall dimensions_ of the set and you've merely ignored the points I've put forward and replied "nuh-uh"... 

I've never claimed the drawing to be as detailed as a construction blueprint. But it does do what it was meant to do: give the overall size and configuration of the main set geometry. The drawing you are clinging to was most likely prepared for the writers, to give them a rough guide so they could write stage directions and blocking. Why would that drawing necessarily need to be all that accurate? It also comes from the same document that passes off a drawing of the forced perspective miniature Hangar Deck set as the "real" thing.



> Besides, as you pointed out yourself by posting that pic from "The Cage" over on TrekBBS, the basic contours of the bridge didn't change from the time it was initially built for the pilots and when they rebuilt it for the series.


But it may have changed from when it was first dreamed up and sketched out on paper. BTW, thanks for reminding me about that pic. It's more solid evidence for the soundstage drawing. I'll post it here so everyone can have a look:










This is a detail of a scene from The Cage. It is one of the clearest images of this detail. Notice where the alcove intersects the face of the control panel. See how it is much closer to the back angle of the control panel rather than the front edge? As is plainly obvious, the actual set matches McMaster AND the soundstage drawing on this point. It most definitely doesn't match Capt. April's version or the Writers' Guide drawing, which shows the intersection much closer to the edge of the panel.



> In any case, I'd suggest taking a look at one with a date on it. Specifically, the hardback version of "Inside Star Trek" by Justman & Solow, page 114, a less refined version of the picture I posted earlier, dated *5/13/66*.


I'll happily check that out tonight and let you know what I find.



> BTW, for those who are wondering why a few of us doubt Mr. Gagen's choice of artwork, here's the whole thing...


Actually, I'm working off a different image than the one you posted. It's a more dimensionally accurate image of the actual drawing that appeared when it was auctioned off.

===================



uss_columbia said:


> So... which drawing more closely matches what we've seen onscreen? The stage 9 drawing, definitely! (at least at the time of The Corbomite Maneuver). There's no "extra step" in the alcove walls in the drawing or on-screen evidence, but there is in the other drawing. The alcove begins 3/4 of the way back on the consoles in both the on-screen evidence and the stage 9 drawing, but it appears further toward the center of the bridge in the other drawing. While the bridge-only drawing may not be "preliminary" per se, it is certainly the less accurate of the two Jefferies bridge drawings in TMOST. The onscreen evidence makes this abundantly clear.


Thanks, USS Columbia! You have presented a very good rundown of the onscreen evidence that supports the veracity of the soundstage drawing.



> I just noticed a difference between the alcove "front" in The Corbomite Maneuver vs. The Ultimate Computer. In Corbomite, it's well behind the top-front of the console screens; in Ultimate Computer, it's still behind but not as far so. Did it change during the course of the series? I guess so, at least a bit.
> 
> Sloppy placement of wild section? Or deliberate change? Or optical illusion?


Actually, what you're seeing is a varying placement of a wild section of the set. The upper section of each of the stations (containing one or two viewscreens) was a separate piece that could be removed for filming. This allowed them to film over a console into the bridge. These appear to have just "sat" on top of the consoles. The varience you noticed is how far these pieces were slid in.



> (A 50' diameter dome for the bridge-only drawing's bridge would fit the same as a 53' diameter dome with the stage9 drawing's bridge.)


Based on my own photo studies, and a fresh evaluation of the Polar Lights model and plans, I believe the dome on the actual model is 5-7/8" (5.875") in diameter.

The implications for the "real" bridge dome are as follows:
947' = 11,134"
Best figure for actual length of "11-footer" (from Kerr) = 134.08161"
This means the scale of studio model = 1:84.75435
"Actual size" of bridge dome: 5.875" x 84.75435 = 497.93181"
or, almost exactly 41'-6"

As you can see, if Capt. April were interested in making a real scale drawing, he has a lot more work to do to shoehorn his bridge complex into the dome.

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

One comment about the 41'-6": that's the diameter of the production dome, right?
The pilot dome was larger. Considering the cutaway drawing in TMOST showing the recessed bridge, I think it's reasonable to think that the bridge is recessed the same amount as the portion of the dome that was cut off between the pilots and the production ship, as CRA asserts.

Do you have an accurate figure for the diameter of the pilot dome?
(Of course the dome at ceiling level is going to be less than at floor level, but the bridge shape seems to allow for this (depending on how deep you consider the screens above each station (CRT vs. flat panel).)

Projecting the curve of the series dome down, I would guess the pilot dome would be around 45' based on your 41.5' production dome.

When the dome was cut down after the pilot, was the external "tube" moved in relative to the center of the dome (so that it intersects the dome the same amount), or did it stay in the same place (thus reducing the amount of overlap with the dome)?


Paul


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> One comment about the 41'-6": that's the diameter of the production dome, right? The pilot dome was larger. Considering the cutaway drawing in TMOST showing the recessed bridge, I think it's reasonable to think that the bridge is recessed the same amount as the portion of the dome that was cut off between the pilots and the production ship, as CRA asserts.


You're correct, my figure is for the production dome. As for the theory that the dome was lowered into the teardrop during a refit -- I support this interpretation and have complimented Capt. April on it the idea elsewhere. The problem with how he applies it is that he doesn't play fair with the scale of the thing. He has extended the shape about right, but he has scaled it way too big. Here is his drawing with a properly scaled and profiled production hull overlaid. Just for grins, I've also placed some Matt Jefferies crewmen scaled to exactly 6 feet tall (by April's own scale). 










This plainly shows that he is working sleight of hand from both ends: The dome is too big and the bridge is too small. Do you remember Spock having to duck his head everytime he exited the turbo lift? Or notice that he was as tall as the readout screens over his station? _Neither did I..._ :lol:

As for the amount of sink depicted on the Jefferies section drawing -- it appears to align the edge of the outer consoles with the bottom of the dome. Alas, this is not enough sink to allow us to rotate the entire bridge back to forward-facing. To do that, you need to sink it all the way until the turbolift is contained within the "teardrop."



> Do you have an accurate figure for the diameter of the pilot dome?


I haven't worked on that version yet.



> When the dome was cut down after the pilot, was the external "tube" moved in relative to the center of the dome (so that it intersects the dome the same amount), or did it stay in the same place (thus reducing the amount of overlap with the dome)?


I am not sure -- I'll have to look into it. All I know for sure is: on the production version, it is almost _exactly_ the proper offset from the center to match the set.

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Are you gonna help come up with a workable solution, or continue to be a slave to past misconceptions?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ That's really too funny.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Are you gonna help come up with a workable solution, or continue to be a slave to past misconceptions?


If you mean, am I going to make any more suggestions to you on how to make your bridge face forward while not altering either the set or the model? 

No. 

I have already done so at length on your second Art forum thread and it made no difference. There is no point, I'd be wasting my breath. For for over a year I stuck with it because I really thought you were serious about doing something definitive. I had high hopes for your project. But I have finally lost all interest in it because it has become painfully obvious that it will never amount to anything useful -- just another fan-boy pipe dream -- because you have thrown common sense, basic math, geometry and scale out the window. Who wants a "scale" drawing with no scale? Franz Joseph, for all the things he got wrong in hindsight, was at least was a competent draughtsman -- and his drawings have a definite scale. He didn't have to cheat to make his drawings look like something they're not. When he wanted to make changes to what was seen on screen, he made changes and was upfront about it. He didn't pretend that it was that way all along. He even made sure we understood he was depicting another ship, the Constitution, not the Enterprise. As a result, his plans look nothing like the actual filming model -- but then he isn't claiming they do.

As for "misconceptions," I know of none I'm enslaved to. But I'm willing to listen to anyone with a commitment to truth and a respect for real evidence who thinks I am. I'll give them a fair hearing and may just change my mind about things.

For those who wonder what the "backstory" to this exchange is, you can read all about it first-hand in this thread: 

Okay, let's try this again... 

Look for my first entry on July 7, 2003. If nothing else, it makes entertaining reading... :tongue: 

Mark


----------



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

Thanks for the first numbers of how big the actual outer dome was, MGagen.

Also mighty gracious of you to compliment Capt. April for the idea of the more sunken bridge.

Since he seems to have accidentally or otherwise not scaled that solution properly, would you have any interest in perhaps doing it to the proper scale, with the resultant new outer dome measurements(if they have to be increased at all)?

Pretty please?

Then of course we could see if all the changes were indeed possible given the 947 feet length.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Over on trekbbs, MGagen wrote:


> My source finally came through with the bridge plans I had alluded to earlier (though I am not sure in which of the many threads this subject spawned I mentioned it).
> 
> The plans turn out to be a fully dimensioned sketch by Matt Jefferies that was auctioned recently. A few details in the cross section of the console convince me that it is a first draft. It is, however, in Jefferies' own hand and contains detailed measurements for just about everything relating to the outer ring of the bridge set.
> 
> ...


Any chance of some pics of these drawings?
I guess it goes without saying that this Jefferies drawing had the offset turbolift, or you would have commented on it. (I still believe the lift was intended to be directly behind the con originally.)


Paul


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Once again, Mark is basing his conclusions on faulty data, namely, *incorrect measurements.*

I just took apart one of my Polar Lights Enterprises and did some direct measurements (Thomas has already informed us that the directions have deliberate errors in them, while the model is accurate, so I ignore the directions in matters like this).

The overall length of the model 28.8 cm (a little over 11 1/4 inches).

Assuming an overall length of the full size ship as 947', that gives us a scale of 1 cm = 32.88'

The production version of the bridge is 1.3 cm in diameter, which yields a full size diameter of *42.75',* already a foot wider than Mark is allowing.

However, I'm basing the placement of the interior on the pilot bridge dome, while he's still latched onto trying to shoehorn the thing into the smaller production one.

The pilot dome, as reproduced by PL, comes in at 1.5 cm, or *49.32'.*

In any case, this could be largely irrelevant to my project, since I'm mainly working from the Alan Sinclair drawings, and his rendering of the production version of the bridge comes in at 6.3", which scales up to a little over 44'. I haven't figured out how big that makes the pilot version, but based upon the figures listed above, it's probably a shade over 50' around.

Either way, my version works just fine.

Bottom line is, Mark is scaling the ship too damn small, no matter how you slice it.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Thanks for the first numbers of how big the actual outer dome was, MGagen.
> 
> Also mighty gracious of you to compliment Capt. April for the idea of the more sunken bridge.


If you read through the thread I mentioned earlier you'll find many compliments for Capt. April from me. You'll also see some very...interesting...comments from him. But in this case, the idea of sinking the bridge within the dome was actually proposed by someone other than April. What he can take credit for is the idea that this was accomplished by lowering the dome itself, with the pilot bridge in place, into the structure of the teardrop during a refit.



> Since he seems to have accidentally or otherwise not scaled that solution properly, would you have any interest in perhaps doing it to the proper scale, with the resultant new outer dome measurements (if they have to be increased at all)?
> 
> Pretty please?
> 
> Then of course we could see if all the changes were indeed possible given the 947 feet length.


I don't have the everything at my fingertips right now to make a new drawing based on my blueprint, but I can show you an earlier one based on the Polar Lights blues. I wanted him to see that he'd have to sink the bridge almost all the way out of the dome before it can be rotated without breaking the turbolift out of the hull. The image depicts the offset bridge, although once it's dropped sufficiently you can rotate it however you want. And this is possible in a 947' ship. The image shows the bare minimum it must be lowered. Given the domed top he gives the turbolift it needs to go even lower. Even so, this accomplishes everything CRA wants, but he still rejects it -- preferring to play footsie with the scale of both interior and exterior instead. Go figure. 










Notice how well the turbolift aligns with the exterior tube. Only stubborn pride and willful ignorance can blind a person to what that tube was intended to be. CRA has both by the bucketful.

Now I want to be clear: While I like the idea of a forward facing bridge -- and this is the most palatable solution by my lights -- I still maintain that this is not Jefferies' concept. He designed the lift to be right behind the captain. After this was changed by shuffling the set, he passed up three opportunities to move the exterior tube to keep the bridge forward facing. He surely knew the implications, but he chose to leave it in place on the model. Jefferies' Enterprise had a rotated bridge -- at least until he restored it to forward facing with his Phase II design.

========



Captain April said:


> Once again, Mark is basing his conclusions on faulty data, namely, *incorrect measurements.*


THIS from a man who gave us the lilliputian bridge posted above. He hasn't even addressed my post where I put in 6 foot tall figures (by his own scale) that can't walk through the turbolift door without banging their heads! And he believes he's competent to evaluate the accuracy of measurements. :lol:



> I just took apart one of my Polar Lights Enterprises and did some direct measurements (Thomas has already informed us that the directions have deliberate errors in them, while the model is accurate, so I ignore the directions in matters like this).


Does he own a pair of calipers? More likely he eyeballed it with a ruler. Capt. April has been so careless in his use of figures in the past that I'm sure I'll be forgiven for being skeptical of them this time around.

For my part, I've corresponded with someone who is in a position to know the exact details of the studio model, and he tells me the PL blueprints are very accurate -- with only a few small "errors." I enumerated what I thought those errors were, based on my own studies; and he confirmed that I had found them. The shape of the dome is a little off, but its dimensions are correct.



> The production version of the bridge is 1.3 cm in diameter, which yields a full size diameter of *42.75',* already a foot wider than Mark is allowing.


Why, _that's a whole six inches on each side!_  Let's see, even if his figures are right (which I doubt) the PL Model is still much closer to my figure than his.



> However, I'm basing the placement of the interior on the pilot bridge dome, while he's still latched onto trying to shoehorn the thing into the smaller production one.


This is a red herring. He's judging Jefferies work back in '64 by a notion he just came up with a week or so ago. Jefferies did it his way, and I doubt he had CRA's theory in mind. The fact is: the only reliable version is the final configuration. The pilot version is no longer available for anyone to measure -- not Kerr, and not Polar Lights. All information about it is guesswork.



> Either way, my version works just fine.


It patently does not -- unless you're a hobbit.

Mark


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> Any chance of some pics of these drawings?
> I guess it goes without saying that this Jefferies drawing had the offset turbolift, or you would have commented on it. (I still believe the lift was intended to be directly behind the con originally.)
> 
> Paul


I don't want to post it as it has never been officially published. I'm a publisher myself and am a stickler for such things. No doubt April will post it, as I emailed it privately to him some time ago.

It is of a typical wedge section and does not show the alcove at all.

I can say that the most important measurement on the drawing (the significance of which I grasped after the post you quote) shows the outer radius of the _platform_ on which the set is built. This same platform is visible in the soundstage drawing and when that is scaled to match the dimension, the soundstage bridge matches the McMaster blueprint dead on. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> ...I still maintain that this is not Jefferies' concept. He designed the lift to be right behind the captain. After this was changed by shuffling the set, he passed up three opportunities to move the exterior tube to keep the bridge forward facing. He surely knew the implications, but he chose to leave it in place on the model. Jefferies' Enterprise had a rotated bridge -- at least until he restored it to forward facing with his Phase II design.


My theory is that MJ didn't correct the exterior because deep-down he *knew* that the *real* bridge faced forward and had the lift directly behind the captain.  

Paul


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

> Now I want to be clear: While I like the idea of a forward facing bridge -- and this is the most palatable solution by my lights -- I still maintain that this is not Jefferies' concept.


Bob Justman disagrees with you. And he's still around to debate the issue.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Bob Justman disagrees with you. And he's still around to debate the issue.


Oh, give me a break! I very much doubt Bob Justman ever had a discussion with Mr. Jefferies about his original intentions and the evolution of the miniatures and sets. And he didn't claim to have. I've read the "transcript." Clearly, Justman always thought of it as forward-facing. That says nothing about Jefferies' original intent.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Justman was in the chain-of-command that approved the set designs and the model designs. In fact, as the associate producer, in charge of getting the physical production done and budgeted, he probably talked to him about it than Roddenberry did.

On other news, I emailed Alan Sinclair about the actual size of the big effects miniature, about an hour or so ago. Here's an excerpt from his response, which just arrived:



> Per my conversations with Gary Kerr the actual model is approximately 134 1/8”. Gary indicated the model’s geometry is extremely difficult to measure, the saucer sags in the front and the nacelles sag in the back, making a linear dimension nearly impossible to take. Even he is not sure of the actual dimension.


That would add a layer of difficulty to the whole exercise, now wouldn't it?

In any case, I emailed him back to see if he at least knows the exact size of the bridge dome. If we can at least get _that_ dimension nailed down, it'll help a lot, on all sides.


----------



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

Thanks for the sketches, MGagen. I had asked for them before having read your post that ended up being right before the one in which I had asked for them. In other words, I hadn't hit the refresh button in awhile and didn't know you were averse to doing you're own take on it.

The ones you've posted above on this page though are more then adequate. It answers the length question - that there is no need to enlarge the ship, just to make the bridge way lowerer then it's been envisioned previously.

Also, I realize that Jefferies could have changed the exterior design if he had wanted to, but perhaps there were other issues we aren't aware of.

Since they used so much stock footage, sometimes radically different versions of the ship in the same episode, I wonder if Jefferies might not have been told "hell, change it all you want, but we've got tons of film we're going to use anyway!"

Trek was the most expensive special effects show created up to that point in time. And they clearly felt the budget pinch constantly.

We'll probably never know if he would have been allowed to change that aspect of the ship because of film having already been shot, etc.

You're right though, at least he fixed it on the Phase II Enterprise.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the whole disconnect had to do with budgetary problems.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Captain April said:


> Bob Justman disagrees with you. And he's still around to debate the issue.


The basic set layout was finalized during the filming of "The Cage". While he was involved in that episode, and may have had something to do with rearranging the position of the doors, I doubt that much was actually discussed on that issue.

He - and most others involved - were more concerned with shot composition (something modern trek staffers could do much better) and they felt the elevator needed to be moved to the side.

However, despite all of that, the basic issue is that you (Cap'n) have the scaling messed up a bit here and there. That's a fact, and you can either live with it or not - I'm not worried about it anymore as the whole project appears to be getting further and further away from reality...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Let's take the common objections one at a time.

_"Bob Justman disagrees with you."_

-- Let's see the direct quote, Captain April. I read it when you first posted it but can't seem to find it now. My impression at the time was that it was anything but a definite statement. More of a "I guess I always thought it faced forward." It was a gut response, not a reasoned one. He appeared to never have given it much thought (which is understandable: he had an art department to worry about those kind of things). Also, it's pretty well accepted that they meant for it to face forward initially -- they just made it impossible right out of the starting gate by moving the turbolift on the set from it's aft position. It is now physically impossible for it to face forward in the location Jefferies indicated. This is not an opinion -- it's a cold, hard, undeniable fact of Euclidean geometry.

_It wasn't changed because they already had footage with it directly aft._

-- If continuity was a problem they wouldn't have changed so many other much more noticeable features several times and continued to use footage of them throughout the series. Does anyone think moving the turbolift tube would have been more obvious than the dome vs. grille nacelle endcaps; the opaque dome with antenna vs. lit dome with lights; the tall bridge vs. low bridge; etc.?

_It was a budget problem. They couldn't afford to change it._

-- There are two things wrong with this one. First, the bridge was shuffled _before _the large model was even built. They wouldn't need to _"change"_ anything, just put it on in the right place from the first. Second, they obviously had enough money to alter the appearance of the ship at least two times after it was finished. One of those alterations even involved removing the bridge and turbo tube. Merely putting it on 36 degrees around would have cost exactly nothing extra.

None of the objections stand up to reason. *The obvious answer is that Matt Jefferies valued the exterior symmetry more than a forward facing bridge.* When he got around to designing the refit for Phase II, he added a second turbolift and got both external and internal symmetry.

Mark


----------



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

Captain April said:


> Justman was in the chain-of-command that approved the set designs and the model designs. In fact, as the associate producer, in charge of getting the physical production done and budgeted, he probably talked to him about it than Roddenberry did.
> 
> On other news, I emailed Alan Sinclair about the actual size of the big effects miniature, about an hour or so ago. Here's an excerpt from his response, which just arrived:
> 
> ...


I thought Sinclair was dead?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Nope. Alan Sinclair is very much alive. Much to everyone's benefit.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Yup, he posted here on this forum today, as a matter of fact. He goes by the username Wizardofflight.
I can't think of the the name of the guy that died in the Iowa turret explosion a few years back, but perhaps he's the one Chuck's thinking of.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I just thought of the name: Everhart. (might not be spelled right, though)


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Alan Sinclair.

Alan Everhart.

Both drafted USS Enterprise studio model plans.

Yup. I guess you could confuse the two. I didn't originally realize that Sinclair was being confused with Everhart. Must be getting senile.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Just got a response from Mr. Sinclair...



> >From: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: About the Enterprise...
> >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:33:32 EDT
> ...


Someone needs to readjust his figures, *and it ain't me!*


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Based on this figure, the dome is just shy of 45' on the production version.
Someone posted the bridge positioned in exactly such a dome. I believe it was fourmadmen.
Here's the "original" picture (with bridge slid forward to fit)
http://vpinc.biz/~pjh/images/bridge-in-44-foot-dome.jpg
and here's my crudely slid back to center version (since I don't have his original centered picture before he slid it forward)
http://vpinc.biz/~pjh/images/bridge-in-44-foot-dome-centered.jpg
The pictures speak for themselves.


Paul


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I believe I did at one time post a picture like that but it was a manipulation of an image I got from April or Mark (can't remember which -- not that I can't tell them apart but I just don't remember :hat: )


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Someone needs to readjust his figures, *and it ain't me!*


_Au contraire, mon frere._ You have many figures to readjust. If the measurement you cite is correct, the bridge dome is a touch over 44'-9" in diameter. I only have to make a minor adjustment. But it's just as bad as ever for your case -- it's still impossible to fit a forward-facing, properly scaled bridge in that dome without doing what I've suggested for months now: drop it all the way until the turbolift is in the teardrop.

And we still haven't heard a word from you about the hobbit-sized bridge you depicted in your last drawing. How about a _real_ scale drawing from you for a change?

I admit I'm puzzled by this figure. It doesn't jibe with other things I have from reliable sources. However, I'll make enquiries and see what I can turn up. If it pans out, I'll happily alter my drawings. 

When will _you_ ever face up to facts?

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Alan Sinclair and Gary Kerr just said you're wrong. I think you're the one who needs to face some facts, because a large part of your argument hinges on the dome being too small. 

As for the "hobbit-sized bridge", that's a problem with the McMaster cross section I've been using. And if it's too short at a diameter of thirty feet, which has been pretty well established as the size of the actual set, then guess what? *McMaster made the bridge too wide.*

And I am going to be redoing the bridge interior, since the source material is so far off the mark. Are you going to do a similar reevaluation?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Here's the goods.

First, we have a cobbled together cross section using Jefferies' sketch of a typical bridge station, determining how that fits with a 30' diameter bridge, including a Jefferies 6' figure, from the shuttlecraft drawing, then working in the McMasters cross section, scaled to a diameter of 30', and inserting the same Jefferies figure.










Obviously, we've got a height difference.

So, if we match the height of the McMasters version to the Jefferies specs...










Actually, make that _*five*_ feet too wide. And that's not counting the turbolift. No wonder we've been having problems with this mess.

Now, back to seeing how Matt Jefferies' bridge fits into the dome...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Alan Sinclair and Gary Kerr just said you're wrong. I think you're the one who needs to face some facts, because a large part of your argument hinges on the dome being too small.


Alan Sinclair is a fan doing an excellent analysis of the model, just like me and a few dozen others. We're all poring over every scrap of information we can get our hands on and making of it what we can. I was a contributor to Alan's project. A little bit of the accuracy represented there is due to my input. He is a peer, and I take what he says seriously -- but I weigh it against my own work.

Gary Kerr is a different case. He has had access to the model itself and been able to use precision measuring instruments on it. What I have heard quoted directly from him I take as gospel, while keeping it in the context in which he said it. 

You have posted what you say is an email from Sinclair wherein he says "Gary sent me a picture in which he overlaid my drawing on his and the domes were with in a line width of each other." He then goes on to give a figure, not from Kerr but of his own measurement of the picture. Without knowing how large this picture is and how thick the line width he mentions is, we have no way of knowing the margin of error. As I stated above, the figure is puzzling to me, but I will gladly alter my plans the minor amount required, once I have _confirmed_ the figure.

What you do not comprehend is that even the Sinclair figure makes no difference to my argument. It stands as firmly as before since the dome needs to be FAR larger than that to allow what you claim. I might be wrong by a measurement of about four feet -- you ARE wrong in your whole concept.



> As for the "hobbit-sized bridge", that's a problem with the McMaster cross section I've been using. And if it's too short at a diameter of thirty feet, which has been pretty well established as the size of the actual set, then guess what? *McMaster made the bridge too wide.*


First off, your thirty foot figure has never been "established." Secondly, you can't blame McMaster -- you're the one who miscaled his work. 



> And I am going to be redoing the bridge interior, since the source material is so far off the mark. Are you going to do a similar reevaluation?


How's this for a start. I can't make heads or tails of your slapdash doodles, so here's some primary source material. Let McMaster rest in peace and deal with Jefferies:










The main problem with your effort, as usual, is you can't bring yourself to respect the scale plainly marked on a drawing. Here is Jefferies' preliminary bridge section sketch. I use the word sketch advisedly. The dimensions on the drawing are reliable, but the sketch itself is not a tight drafting table drawing. As a result, one needs to re-draft it using the dimensions before you can reliably measure for dimensions not explicitly called out. Having had drafting training, I did so. The key dimension on the drawing is 18'-0". This calls out the _platform_ on which the set is built. This means the set was 36' wide. However, we are interested in the greatest _internal_ measure. This works out to, not 30', but 31' 6-1/4", and extends to the edge of the console's back panel, under the overhead monitors. 

And as you can see above, when laid over the soundstage bridge drawing (which also scales out with a 36' diameter platform) it agrees almost exactly.

Now I would caution that the Jefferies Wedge sketch is a preliminary drawing, and not representative of the final configuration -- unlike the soundstage drawing. The sideview is demonstrably different from what we see onscreen. Still, it does agree very well with the soundstage drawing when it comes to overall size of the platform, the console edge and the central lower level. This suggests to me that it may be relied on for at least its top view.

THIS is Jefferies' bridge -- and this is the bridge you must fit under the dome and still be able to rotate it to forward facing. And you won't be able to do it, as I have said all along, without lowering it all the way until the turbolift is contained within the teardrop.

Mark


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Something like this perhaps.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Four Mad Men said:


> Something like this perhaps.


Yes, that shows pretty clearly how far down it has to drop. Pretty much "all the way." However, since I'm not sure of the accuracy of your digital reconstruction I can't endorse it as evidence.

What is your model based on? It looks like the AMT kit. Perhaps you could make a new hull based on the Sinclair drawings and another based on my outline posted earlier as a correction to April's drawing. Then we could really compare apples to apples. And is your bridge scaled to McMaster or something else?

We need hard line details for our renders or they'll have no more weight than Captain April's doodles.

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Take another look at my examples. McMaster did a 35 foot _interior_.

In any case, you're still fixated on the production dome and ignoring the design history of the ship, with that taller dome. You have to take it into account or none of it makes any sense (or, rather, you find yourself forced into nonsensical conclusions, like facing the bridge 36 degrees to port).

Bottom line, we're talking about taking a set with a 31' interior (certainly fits with the "about thirty feet" I'd been told and that had been deduced by various means), with a turbolift that projects approximately ten feet beyond that, giving us a widest dimension of 41', and centering the thing under a dome fifty feet in diameter.

And you say this is impossible?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

This illustration shows bridge and dome scaled fairly close to actual:
if the outer diameter of lower dome is 44.5 feet as indicated, the illustrated bridge interior is just a bit over 30'.








If the actual dome is 44.9 as CRA asserts, then the illustrated bridge scales out to 30.5, which is a foot small (but that's only 4% undersize), close enough to show that the bridge will not fit if forward-facing when lowered only to the illustrated point, which is about how far Jefferies shows it recessed in his cutaway and also about the same depth as the pilot dome might have been recessed into deck 2. It's precise enough to show that the bridge placed where I believe it was intended fits just fine when not forward-facing yet absolutely will not fit when forward-facing. It would fit forward facing if lowered quite a lot more, as Mark has repeatedly pointed out. That would be a fine thing to do if one insists on a forward-facing bridge and off-center turbolift.
(Of course, if the dome is only 41.5', the illustrated bridge is significantly too small relative to the dome.)


Paul


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Again, Paul, wrong dome.

Factor in the design at the time of the pilots....










....and it all fits together.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

April: your scale comparison of bridge interior diameter between McMasters and Jefferies based on cross-section height was oversimplified.
While the McMasters is 11% shorter overall, a greater percentage of that is in the vaulted ceiling portion. At the top of the console screens (i.e., the flat part of the ceiling before it vaults into a dome shape), the McMasters is only 3% smaller than the Jefferies. (And the height to the bottom of the consoles is actually 7% higher on the McMasters than on the Jefferies. Using the differing shape of the ceiling vault to scale the diameter of the set is not the best idea.








I don't know whether the McMasters cross-section or the Jefferies is closer to the final build. In any case, I think the shape and height of the upper ceiling "dome" is not the most significant feature to use when scaling. I personally would choose the height up to the flat part of the ceiling, at which point, there's not a terribly significant difference between the interior diameters drawn by McMasters and Jefferies.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Again, Paul, wrong dome.
> Factor in the design at the time of the pilots....


No, my friend. There is only _one_ dome. The production dome is the _very same dome_ as the pilot dome. The lower part of it was just shaved off (or recessed into deck 2, if you prefer to think of it that way).
Here's the very same picture with the recessed part of the dome explicitly shown. It changes absolutely nothing significant.








(Note: I've shown the dome recessed further than the bridge. I don't know the actual recess amount. I'd expect the bridge and dome to be recessed the same amount on the "real" ship. I'm not sure whether the recess shown for the dome or for the bridge is the more accurate. Neither makes your proposed arrangement work, of course.)

It seems you are pretending that the "dome" is in fact a right circular cylinder, i.e., that it's walls are straight up. If the bridge fits at the base it must surely fit at the top, too. This is patently ridiculous!

Paul


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Diameter of dome at bridge console level (bridge recessed to console level): 44.9' (or 41.5').
Diameter at base (same as pilot dome at base): perhaps 50'. This dimension is larger than the diamter at widest part of bridge interior. How much so is irrelevant to any fit argument.
Image below shows the significant dome circle (in two options: purple = 44.9', red = 41.5').








Clearly, the consoles clear the dome just fine. The turbolift protrudes through the dome. Yes, its base is okay relative to the pilot dome. But as the dome curves, the turbolift walls remain vertical, protruding through the dome.

Paul


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

April: perhap's I've misunderstood you. Are you now proposing the full pilot dome (i.e., not recessed into deck 2 so that it looks like the production dome but rather looking like it did in the two pilots)? Such a dome AND a recessed bridge would appear to work just fine. I thought you were saying that the dome and bridge were recessed the same amount. (Meaning that in the pilot dome configuration, the bridge was not recessed (as it doesn't appear to be in The Cage), and that the bridge and dome were then recessed the same amount when the ship was refit post-pilots.
If, however, you are saying that the full pilot dome is present, entirely above the teardrop section, just as it appeared in the pilots AND that the bridge is recessed to the console level (or futher), then you may have indeed found your forward facing bridge solution. You're just stuck with the less attractive pilot dome appearance. Whatever floats your starship.


Paul

p.s. I don't really think that's what you're saying, but if it is, you're sitting fine.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

It turns out you'll probably have to recess the bridge a little bit further than you intended even with a full pilot dome above the teardrop.








Of course, the dome curvature is not accurate. If the curvature is steeper at the base than shown, you could recess a little bit less.

Might as well recess it all the way into deck 2 and just use the more attractive production dome. (Or just continue to live in a universe with alternate spatial realities.)


Paul


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

MGagen said:


> Yes, that shows pretty clearly how far down it has to drop. Pretty much "all the way." However, since I'm not sure of the accuracy of your digital reconstruction I can't endorse it as evidence.
> 
> What is your model based on? It looks like the AMT kit. Perhaps you could make a new hull based on the Sinclair drawings and another based on my outline posted earlier as a correction to April's drawing. Then we could really compare apples to apples. And is your bridge scaled to McMaster or something else?
> 
> ...


The image is one of several that were designed to show the different methods being discussed for the bridge. The viewing angle selected was to show how the different methods look within the larger context of the first several decks.

In answer to your questions, I did infact use Sinclair's drawings for alot of the work on my Enterprise (secondary hull, overall saucer profile) but the teardrop and dome really came from a miniature I've got lying around. The bridge is taken from McMaster's and I simply placed it in the center and scaled it so the turbolift of the bridge was within the outer tube. But as I said the intent was just to show how the different options looked within a wider context than just seeing a profile of the bridge and dome.

I'll make a dome based upon the image you mention and populate it with the McMaster's bridge (in the same scale) and post a few sideviews (closer in this time) tomorrow.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

uss_columbia said:


> April: perhap's I've misunderstood you. Are you now proposing the full pilot dome (i.e., not recessed into deck 2 so that it looks like the production dome but rather looking like it did in the two pilots)? Such a dome AND a recessed bridge would appear to work just fine. I thought you were saying that the dome and bridge were recessed the same amount. (Meaning that in the pilot dome configuration, the bridge was not recessed (as it doesn't appear to be in The Cage), and that the bridge and dome were then recessed the same amount when the ship was refit post-pilots.
> If, however, you are saying that the full pilot dome is present, entirely above the teardrop section, just as it appeared in the pilots AND that the bridge is recessed to the console level (or futher), then you may have indeed found your forward facing bridge solution. You're just stuck with the less attractive pilot dome appearance. Whatever floats your starship.
> 
> 
> ...


You've got the general idea.

Here's what I've been working on for the past few hours...










Bridge is 31.5' in diameter, per MGagen, with the dome slightly more than 50' at the base (pilot era), and 44.5' in diameter remaining exposed after being lowered into the superstructure (a.k.a., the production version).

Any questions?


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Capt. April,

I congratulate you for finally coming around to what I've been suggesting for lo these many months -- although you seem to lack the good grace to acknowledge it in words. It looks, if I am reading your latest image correctly, that you have _finally_ lowered the bridge within the dome sufficiently to place the complete turbolift within the teardrop on the production version. Bravo! You may finally rotate at will! I can hardly believe my point has finally sunk in.

However, I must post one further adjustment to your drawing. This was completed earlier today but I couldn't post it until now. It seems you've messed up the scaling again when you adapted my latest image. Here it is neatly corrected back to 1"=1'. Unfortunately, it still doesn't leave you room to rotate your _pilot_ version as you drew the dome too big, and the slope will cause the pilot turbolift to erupt the same way the series version did when placed too high. Like Kahn, you really seem to have trouble thinking in three dimensions. No matter, you can blueprint the production version and at least have THAT version face forward.










BTW, I would not place too much credence in the side view profile of the Jefferies bridge section sketch. As I have said all along, it is a preliminary design and does not reflect the final configuration. While the platform top view provides very good scale information, the side view is suspect. Just check out how low the knee pocket would work out. The McMaster BPs are still your best bet.

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

You missed this bit:



> *with the dome slightly more than 50' at the base*


When you try to rip on me, get it right, fer chrissakes.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> You missed this bit:
> 
> "with the dome slightly more than 50' at the base"
> 
> When you try to rip on me, get it right, fer chrissakes.



_You_ obviously missed _this_ bit:



MGagen said:


> However, I must post one further adjustment to your drawing. This was completed earlier today but I couldn't post it until now.


I worked up that drawing based on the 50 foot figure called out in the drawing you posted in the afternoon when you claimed "it fits!" In it, you copied dimensional callouts for ten feet and pasted them together five times on a side. A sloppy way to build a scale, but then that's why you made the dome too big. And as is plainly obvious from my drawing, the minor amount you added to it later that night does _nothing_ to change the validity of my criticism.

Leaving out the profanity, I'll quote you back to yourself: "When you try to rip on me, get it right..."

Mark


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

Guys, take a step back, take a deep breath, and take a look at what two adults are ranking each other about...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Well, April, it seems you have a decent fit for a forward-facing bridge by sinking the bridge further, as Mark has been urging. (I personally don't subscribe to this positioning, but I think your position is now a reasonable interpretation.)

Looking to (the rest of) deck 2 and to deck 3, you propose an EVA or sensor pod bay with a little door at the back of the teardrop section. Have you looked closely at the size of the feature that you suggest is a door? I wonder how small the pods would have to be to clear the door (in a better-than-delta-flyer manner  ). Also, would it be one of these pods that was jettisoned in Court Martial?

(Perhaps, as you suggested earlier, we should move such discussions to another thread (or over at trekbbs).)

Back on the original topic of this thread (as to which bridge blueprints are best), it seems that the Jefferies top view in the Stage 9 diagram, supplemented with his preliminary construction sketch is the best for nailing the overall top-view dimensions. The McMasters prints are the best available for showing the station details and cross section.
The construction blueprints that a few people have would be the best, I'm sure. However, I haven't ever seen them or even talked to anyone that has them. (Apparently, Mark has talked to someone that had them, though (I forget the name of the guy that had them).)


----------



## ken072359 (Aug 1, 2003)

Pygar said:


> Guys, take a step back, take a deep breath, and take a look at what two adults are ranking each other about...



Does this mean that we can now start discussing the lower deck of the Jupiter 2?


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

Aaaaauuuugggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Captain April said:


>


I must say I very much approve of the modified bridge layout shown at the bottom of the picture: the turbolift is directly behind the captain's chair, as I believe it was intended!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I'm lovin' this.

Good, cheap entertainment.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Monthly ISP bill: $20
Cheap PC: $500
endlessly debating Trek technicalities: free
Finally seeing Captain April take MGagen's advice: Priceless


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> ... Unfortunately, it still doesn't leave you room to rotate your _pilot_ version... No matter, you can blueprint the production version and at least have THAT version face forward.


I just thought of an interesting side-effect of this: with Pilot dome, the bridge must be rotated so that it isn't forward-facing; with production dome and more recessed bridge, it can be freely rotated back to forward-facing. This would provide the answer to "why shrink the dome and sink the bridge?"
(All of this applies only if you subscribe to the fully-sunken, forward-facing bridge theory, of course.)





> Here it is neatly corrected back to 1"=1'.


I'd love to have your monitor! The fifty foot dome would be 50" across at this scale. On my puny 21" monitor, it seemed like maybe 5". 
(It makes no sense to talk about scale in inches when using a jpeg image, which records only the unit of _pixel_, which has no consistent, defined size. I imagine that your source drawing is indeed 1" = 1' (and if you posted a TIFF, for example, my image software might even scale it correctly for my screen or printer, though my experience has been that this is not reliable).)


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> I just thought of an interesting side-effect of this: with Pilot dome, the bridge must be rotated so that it isn't forward-facing; with production dome and more recessed bridge, it can be freely rotated back to forward-facing. This would provide the answer to "why shrink the dome and sink the bridge?"
> (All of this applies only if you subscribe to the fully-sunken, forward-facing bridge theory, of course.)


You _can_ have a forward facing pilot bridge -- as long as the turbolift is contained in the teardrop. What I meant is CRA's theory of the bridge being in the same position inside the dome with the dome itself submerged into the tear drop only works if the pilot version is rotated. Otherwise, a forward facing production version would sit low in the dome but the pilot version would need to sit EVEN LOWER within it.



> I'd love to have your monitor! The fifty foot dome would be 50" across at this scale. On my puny 21" monitor, it seemed like maybe 5".
> (It makes no sense to talk about scale in inches when using a jpeg image, which records only the unit of _pixel_, which has no consistent, defined size.


This is not exactly true. Every JPEG has a particular resolution (Dots Per Inch) that provides the other half of the equation. Professional graphics software (such as Photoshop, which I use) allows one to rescale an image without resampling the data by merely changing the DPI. 

But I see where the confusion lies. The uploaded file on Photobucket has been rescaled automatically to 72 dpi. I was unaware this was going on. In future I'll make sure to indicate what dpi the image is supposed to be in order to measure out right. My images were all correctly drawn, the "virtual rulers" were just re-calibrated by the image host.

For example, the image you refer to is 695 pixels by 1089 pixels and was designed at a resolution of 12 dpi. At that size it scales out at 1"=1'. This translates to an image that is defined as 57.917" x 90.75". However, after Photobucket got done resetting the resolution to 72 dpi it was only 9.653" x 15.125", even though it was still 695 pixels x 1089 pixels.



> I imagine that your source drawing is indeed 1" = 1' (and if you posted a TIFF, for example, my image software might even scale it correctly for my screen or printer, though my experience has been that this is not reliable).)


That may be true, although a TIFF would have been 2.17 MB in size and too "heavy" to post anyway.  

Mark


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

What I don't understand is:

Why MUST the bridge face directly forward?

It really only effects THREE positions. 

How many of the crew's quarters face directly forward? Transporters? Sickbay? Engineering?

In _The Making of Star Trek_, it is stated that the ship contains anti-accelleration and directional force fields to keep the crew from being smeared into jelly whenever the ship maneuvers under impulse power, where inertial forces are present. So, it really shouldn't make any difference whatsoever how the orientation is arranged.

As amusing as this thread is, I find it to be somewhat silly to quibble over whether three crew members face directly forward or slightly off to the left inside a command center that has no actual viewports or clear windshield to tell just which way you are oriented.

If you were a crew member seated at one of the monitior stations along the outer rim of the bridge, would you care if you were facing directly forward or not? How many of the outer stations on the bridge face directly forward, anyway? Answer: 0

I don't intend to demean any of the considerable research, drafting, or other efforts that have been expended in presenting these arguments. But, think about it. You're only talking about the orientation of the captain, helmsman and navigator.

Check the interior blueprints and cutaway posters and you'll see what I mean. Almost nothing faces directly forward anywhere on the ship.

Whether Matt Jefferies originally intended for the bridge to face directly forward or not, in the end, we still ended up with an external detail on the miniatures that is directly behind the bridge dome, and an interior set that depicts the elevator station behind and to the left of the Captain. If it was later "fixed" for Phase II and TMP, that's fine. But on the original, the bridge is apparently offset, and it's not that big a deal.


ACE


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Because facing the bridge 36 degrees to port is stupid. :tongue:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> You _can_ have a forward facing pilot bridge -- as long as the turbolift is contained in the teardrop. What I meant is CRA's theory of the bridge being in the same position inside the dome with the dome itself submerged into the tear drop only works if the pilot version is rotated. Otherwise, a forward facing production version would sit low in the dome but the pilot version would need to sit EVEN LOWER within it.


Yes, that's what I was saying. With CRA's vertical bridge position relative to the dome, it was the sinking for production version that allowed it to be rotated forward. If that's the goal, it provides justification for lowering the dome and the bridge with it (while keeping the same relative vertical position between bridge and original dome base).



> Every JPEG has a particular resolution (Dots Per Inch) that provides the other half of the equation. Professional graphics software (such as Photoshop, which I use) allows one to rescale an image without resampling the data by merely changing the DPI.


I guess since I'm used to seeing jpegs mis-scaled, I assumed they didn't even store the original dpi in the image format. I've noticed browsers normally display them 1 screen pixel per dot.



> TIFF would have been 2.17 MB in size and too "heavy" to post anyway.


I wasn't suggesting that you actually post a TIFF, just that the TIFF format specifies the source dpi, in contrast to what I thought about jpeg (which I guess isn't true anyway).


Paul


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> What I don't understand is:
> 
> Why MUST the bridge face directly forward?
> 
> ...


I'm with you on this.

Still, we're used to looking out a forward facing window when we drive or fly. Thus, we tend to think that the viewscreen faces forward as well. It doesn't *have* to. Indeed, it most likely does not on NCC-1701. However, I believe the original intent was that the lift be directly behind the captain with the screen facing forward. Jefferies obviously didn't think it was important to keep it facing forward, or he would have made the exterior allow for it when it was being modified.



> As amusing as this thread is, I find it to be somewhat silly to quibble over whether three crew members face directly forward or slightly off to the left inside a command center that has no actual viewports or clear windshield to tell just which way you are oriented.


Of course it's silly! But we like doing it. There's nothing wrong with silly.




> I don't intend to demean any of the considerable research, drafting, or other efforts that have been expended in presenting these arguments. But, think about it. You're only talking about the orientation of the captain, helmsman and navigator.


Actually, who faces the viewscreen isn't the issue. It's the viewscreen itself that people feel should face forward. Anyone at any position can turn and look at the viewscreen. Some feel that when they do this, they should be looking forward (this probably because the screen more often than not is showing the view directly forward).
I assume these people reorient their TV sets as they watch movies so that the screen faces the most-often-viewed direction in the movie. 



> But on the original, the bridge is apparently offset, and it's not that big a deal.


Amen, brother. I agree. Mark agrees. But April is having fun figuring out how it *could* face forward, and Mark and I and others are having fun "helping" him.
I don't subscribe to CRA's theory, but I agree that it's a workable interpretation when the primary goal is to face the bridge forward. The fact that I don't share the goal doesn't mean I can't enjoy the "what if" scenario.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Every JPEG has a particular resolution (Dots Per Inch) that provides the other half of the equation.


I see where I went wrong. What you say is not exactly true. The JPEG image stream does NOT specify pixel density. Nor does the original JPEG interchange format (for files). However, the improved JFIF (JPEG File Interchange Format) provides for it. (All (or at least nearly all) .jpg files are in fact JFIF files.)
Quoting from the JFIF standard, version 1.02:
"The JFIF APP0 marker provides information which is missing from the JPEG stream: version number, X and Y pixel density (dots per inch or dots per cm), pixel aspect ratio (derived from X and Y pixel density), thumbnail."
The APP0 marker may also be used to include application-specific information. The primary difference between JFIF and the original JPEG interchange format is that the APP0 marker with version number and pixel density is now mandatory.
I was going off long-outdated information from way back when I was first exposed to JPEG. The JFIF standard fixed the missing pixel density problem years ago. (Too bad browsers aren't fixed to actually use it.)
(Actually, the latest IE automatically rescales images to fit the screen (by default). This can be handy when reading CRA threads that have huge inline images; otherwise, one has to scroll side-to-side to read the text.)

Paul


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Posted this over on TrekBBS, might as well post it here as well:

**********************************

My contention is that there was no bullet biting. The interior design was set for dramatic reasons, the exterior for symetry, and in the confusion and scheduling pressures, those two dots didn't get connected until FJ did his version in the 70's, and instead of biting the bullet and figuring out a way for the bridge to face forward, which he admitted himself was the way it was supposed to face (at least according to all the rules of common sense), he punted and saddled us with the concept of the bridge facing off to port for no other reason than the apparent correlation between the interior arrangement of the set and the external appearance of the model, *never accounting for any possible factors in between.*

Remember the old "Lassie is a pig" argument?

For those who missed it, it's an old example of how an argument can have premises that, while all absolutely true and factual, can lead one to a completely erroneous conclusion.

_Lassie is a mammal.

Pigs are mammals.

Therefore, Lassie is a pig._

Or, to put it to the current example.

_The bridge set has a cylindrical turbolift at one side.

The external hull has a cylindrical feature to the rear.

Therefore, the turbolift is to the rear and the bridge faces 36 degrees to port._

*Ain't necessarily so!*

Just as the Lassie argument fails to account for all the different varieties of mammals, Lassie's characteristics that are most definitely unpiglike, the key piggish qualities that Lassie lacks, etc., the argument for the offset bridge, based upon the cylindrical structure to the aft, *fails to account for the design history of the ship,* specifically, that taller dome and just what happened between the time we first saw it that way and when it became shorter. 

* That's why I keep on this bit about how that taller dome is not only not irrelevant, it's the key to the whole bloody puzzle.* 

Focusing on the production version is treating the design like she came out of the San Francisco Fleet Yards like that, in final production configuration, sprouting fully formed from the forehead of Matt Jefferies, *when we all know that wasn't the case.* Both in the reality of the show's production and the continuity of the show, the design changed, things got shuffled around, sets that started out simple got noticeably more complex, the effects model got more detailed, particularly (at least as far as this discussion is concerned) *the size and shape of the bridge dome was changed.* In effect, anything that was established by that rough zoom-in shot in "The Cage" was up for grabs, since _we never did have another such shot again establishing where the bridge actually was and which way it faced._ Only the extreme likelihood that it was probably in the same place, but since we can't point definitively to *ANYTHING* within the confines of the show to clearly state just what heppened to the bridge between "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "The Corbomite Maneuver", nobody can say anybody bit any bullets and pointed the bridge off in any direction other than straight ahead, at least not until FJ in the 70's. At the time of the show, as far as anyone on the show as concerned, and I dare say the vast majority of the audience, the bridge faced forward. Period. The "fix" with the Phase II redesign didn't happen until well after the concept that the cylinder at the back of the bridge dome _was_ the turbolift was effectively pounded into everyone's heads, and the obvious placement of the two cylinders on the dome was both an acknoledgement that they'd screwed up the first time and a determination that they weren't gonna let something like that slide by again.

And, since the Phase II design, however much we may like it, is not canon, *it's irrelevant, and can't be used as definitive of anything,* aside from what I said above, an acknoledgement that they'd screwed up with the original design on that aspect. At best, it serves as interesting background information regarding the design process, and the differences between the approach in 1964, when they were just praying to get on the air and trying to put out a product that was more intelligent than "Captain Video", and in 1977, when they knew folks were gonna be dissecting their work and making detailed notes about it.

Frankly, I think a lot of acrimony in all this has been less about the design quirks of the bridge and more about proving the other guy wrong, because for the most part, we're really not all that far apart on the key issues. It's been a flame war about fractions of inches and which oddball scale is more accurate on a model that wasn't exactly built accurately in the first place. By and large, we've pretty much been arguing the same thing, just differing over the fine details and what those details imply.

I'd like to see more of a scientific approach taken in matter like these, i.e., let's find out the truth, not build up the perfect argument in which to prove the other guy is a know-nothing fathead. This discussion, on all the various theads and boards, has yielded some pretty interesting facts (like *FINALLY* determining some pretty definitive stats on size of the bridge, after about a year of digging, searching, manipulating pictures of old preliminary sketches and screen caps, and evaluating full-size reproductions). Nobody forced me to take MGagen's position, because I'd been moving in that direction anyway; the only question was where the end of the road was, and to get there, I needed certain facts. The main regret is that those facts had to come out of a borderline flame war. 

All through this, the only bit that I considered chiseled in neutronium was that the bridge faced forward and was at the top of the primary hull. Anything beyond that, like how high the bridge was in the dome, how the turbohafts were laid out, how the setup reconciled with that shot in "The Cage", etc., etc., needed to be researched and worked out. The only approach I rejected out of hand was the tossing-in-the-towel answer of pointing the bridge off to port, regardless of the justification, because that's all I see it as, justification for a logical, yet incorrect, conclusion.

To put it another way, I see the bridge facing forward like the bumblebee's ability to fly. By all the rules in the book, the bee shouldn't be able to fly, just like all the rules in the book say that the bridge *must* face 36 degrees to port. Yet the bumblebee, blissfully unaware of the rulebook, flies along his merry way, for one simple fact: *The argument that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight overlook one key fact, the bee's mass.* Factor that in, and there's no reason in the world that the bumblebee _shouldn't_ be able to fly.

Just like the arguments for an offset bridge fail to take into account that clear design changes took place and that we were never given a clear picture of just what those design changes entailed. In short, it's arguing in a vacuum. For all we know from technical points stated in the show, post-Corbomite, the bridge could've been two decks below Engineering, upside down and facing backwards. 

Doesn't make any sense from a design standpoint, but it's just as logical as the argument that it faces 36 degrees to port.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Probably not perfect but should be close. The curvature of the dome has a slight "bump" about 3/4 of the way up but doesn't really chage the outcome. Here is the barest minimum a forward facing bridge must be sunk based upon the McMaster's bridge and the PL sheet. And in truth it would probably be lowerd more to account for the tear drop hull where it meets the dome.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Looks about right.

Now try it with the dome continued on down until it's the same size as the pilot version.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Just when you thought is was safe to go back in the water...

It is pretty obvious that despite 12 months of patient responses to many false assertions and muddled reasoning; and in contradiction to what we've all witnessed here in the last two days, nothing has sunk in. 

From my very first post to your "Let's try this again" thread I've stressed the same points:

1. I like the idea of a forward facing bridge
2. I'd like to see a way to make it work
3. Any solution must be faithful to both the interior set and exterior model to really be a "solution"

Every objection I've called you on relates to item 3. This is about nothing more than geometry. You simply can't fit it forward facing in the space MJ indicates. Not without fudging on item 3. 

And now a few specifics:



> *Posted by Captain Robert April:*
> The interior design was set for dramatic reasons, the exterior for symetry, and in the confusion and scheduling pressures, those two dots didn't get connected until FJ did his version in the 70's....


I don't know where you were back then, but I was well aware of the implications of the turbotube and offset bridge back when I got my first copy of Making of Star Trek. And this was years before Franz Joseph came on the scene. He merely studied the evidence and saw what was there. Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't just change it to face forward, since his blueprints are not all that accurate.



> and instead of biting the bullet and figuring out a way for the bridge to face forward, which he admitted himself was the way it was supposed to face (at least according to all the rules of common sense), he punted and saddled us with the concept of the bridge facing off to port for no other reason than the apparent correlation between the interior arrangement of the set and the external appearance of the model, *never accounting for any possible factors in between.*


You are still leaving out a factor he took into account: scale dictates it must be the turbolift. He is not the author of your woes, merely the messenger.



> Remember the old "Lassie is a pig" argument? ....


I'm not sure where this came from. Did you post it in a thread I stopped reading? You quote a logical fallacy about lassie and then apply it in an equally fallacious fashion to the turbotube. What have you proven? That you know how to take on a "straw man."

A properly constructed argument would go thus:

The bridge has a turbolift at a given distance from it's center.

The bridge is contained in a dome too small to accomodate the turbolift.

The exterior of the dome has a tube of the right size at the same distance from center as the turbolift.

Therefore, since the turbolift is not visible sticking through the hull, the turbolift must be in the tube.

Beyond this the chips fall where they may -- no where they MUST.



> * That's why I keep on this bit about how that taller dome is not only not irrelevant, it's the key to the whole bloody puzzle.*


The taller dome has the same problem in that the turbolift would stick through its surface. If the bridge is in there at all, that tube is the turbotube. This makes your speculation about the taller Pilot dome a nonstarter. And bringing in the original 540 foot configuration is a red herring. MJ was faced with fitting in a bridge he'd already designed and commited to film. The details of the bridge dome were already altered to take this into account when the model was built.



> In effect, anything that was established by that rough zoom-in shot in "The Cage" was up for grabs, since _we never did have another such shot again establishing where the bridge actually was and which way it faced._ Only the extreme likelihood that it was probably in the same place, but since we can't point definitively to *ANYTHING* within the confines of the show to clearly state just what heppened to the bridge between "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "The Corbomite Maneuver", nobody can say anybody bit any bullets and pointed the bridge off in any direction other than straight ahead, at least not until FJ in the 70's.


You've got your timeline muddled again. I can and do say he "bit the bullet" and rotated the bridge DURING THE FILMING OF THE CAGE. The deed was done before we ever saw a frame of film of our beloved ship model. And as I pointed out before FJ has nothing to do with it.



> ...since the Phase II design, however much we may like it, is not canon, *it's irrelevant, and can't be used as definitive of anything,*


I can and do point to it as firm proof that the man who designed the Enterprise intended that tube on the outside of the dome to be the turbolift. Canon, schmanon -- this is common sense.



> It's been a flame war about fractions of inches and which oddball scale is more accurate on a model that wasn't exactly built accurately in the first place.


Again with the drooping nacelle.



> By and large, we've pretty much been arguing the same thing, just differing over the fine details and what those details imply.


I don't call basic geometry a "fine detail" -- it is everything in this argument. One of us has in essence been saying "this 12 foot cube is contained in this 6 foot sphere and its corners don't stick out." The other has been pointing to the impossibility of that proposition. I leave it to others to discern who is who.



> This discussion, on all the various theads and boards, has yielded some pretty interesting facts (like *FINALLY* determining some pretty definitive stats on size of the bridge, after about a year of digging, searching, manipulating pictures of old preliminary sketches and screen caps, and evaluating full-size reproductions).


I agree, much useful data has been developed. But go back and read through the posts. Most of it agrees with what many of us have been saying all along. It has merely taken you a year to see it.



> All through this, the only bit that I considered chiseled in neutronium was that the bridge faced forward and was at the top of the primary hull. Anything beyond that, like how high the bridge was in the dome, how the turbohafts were laid out, how the setup reconciled with that shot in "The Cage", etc., etc., needed to be researched and worked out. The only approach I rejected out of hand was the tossing-in-the-towel answer of pointing the bridge off to port, regardless of the justification, because that's all I see it as, justification for a logical, yet incorrect, conclusion.


Starting with a goal of finding a way to make the bridge face forward is one thing. Assuming it does from the outset and ignoring all evidence to the contrary is quite another. Go back to logic class. It's called "Begging the Question."

Mark


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Four Mad Men said:


> Probably not perfect but should be close. The curvature of the dome has a slight "bump" about 3/4 of the way up but doesn't really chage the outcome. Here is the barest minimum a forward facing bridge must be sunk based upon the McMaster's bridge and the PL sheet. And in truth it would probably be lowerd more to account for the tear drop hull where it meets the dome.


Four Mad Men,

I think you've got some scale problems. I'll check it out, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow.

Mark


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well like I said, "not perfect", but comensurate with a 5 minute job. I pretty much stuck within the lines of the PL profile (for better or for worse).  Going the otherway and staying to the outside (or midway) of the profile doesn't change much except how much of the turbolift sticks out of the hull.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

You scaled the dome too small.










Base of production version dome - 44.5 feet
Base of pilot version dome - 50 feet


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I disagree. I mean the hull's not made of paper is it? I guess you can consider what I showed to be the interior of the dome. Which the turbolift can't overlap with anymore than it can stick all the way outside.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Just to stir the sh** again (  ), the reason for the taller bridge dome in the first place was because the model was figgered at a different scale - with only about half as many decks as when the ship was rescaled later on. The double-tall dome still represented only one deck height, and therefore shouldn't be represented as a two-deck structure. 

When the scale of the ship was changed for the series, the bottom of the dome was cut off and discarded, with only the top portion retained on the models to represent the new, single-deck height.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

BTW,

I'm still enjoying this thread thoroughly. So, please continue.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Four Mad Men said:


> I disagree. I mean the hull's not made of paper is it? I guess you can consider what I showed to be the interior of the dome. Which the turbolift can't overlap with anymore than it can stick all the way outside.


Clarification time: The "you" in that statement was mainly MGagen, not you specifically, since in that pic, I used elements that came from him (and it was in playing around with them that I noticed that he still had the production version dome at 41 feet and not 44 {see? Those extra few feet make a big difference when you extend things out}). That the base of the pilot version dome still came out at 50 feet is just a happy coincidence (I never claimed I was married to the idea that the bridge dome had to be a certain diameter, 50 feet, 44 feet, 100 feet, whatever; I'm just trying to work out how big things need to be to get the bridge to fit in the proper orientiation at something resembling the traditional location within the ship).

As for the height within the dome, I actually have it a wee bit _higher_ than I'd like, mainly to drive home the point that the bridge will fit inside and still face forward. I prefer it dropped about a foot, down to console height, which leaves plenty of room for hull thickness, etc.

All clear now?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> Just to stir the sh** again (  ), the reason for the taller bridge dome in the first place was because the model was figgered at a different scale - with only about half as many decks as when the ship was rescaled later on. The double-tall dome still represented only one deck height, and therefore shouldn't be represented as a two-deck structure.
> 
> When the scale of the ship was changed for the series, the bottom of the dome was cut off and discarded, with only the top portion retained on the models to represent the new, single-deck height.


Again, that's a production reason, and doesn't effect anything.

Are you going to argue that in "The Cage", the Enterprise was, in fact, only 540 feet long, and somehow _grew_ another 407 feet in length by the time Kirk assumed command?

Is the Enterprise the long lost bastard child of Moya?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Since, in reality, that's what happened in the design process - then...yeah. Because it's a production reason, it truly DOES effect EVERYTHING.

All of the conflicts that you good folks on this thread are trying so desperately to resolve are the direct result of the effects of production decisions rather than the post-TV series "Trek universe" sci-fi reality. 

Sure, in the world of Star Trek, the Enterprise would have always been the same scale - and any design changes would be due to refittings and updates in technology.

In reality, however, the ship was designed by a 20th century television production staff for the practical purposes of making a dramatic, action-adventure science fiction TV series - and fit within the practical realities of a television production budget and available resources of the time.

The ship's exterior, on-screen direction of travel (left to right) directly influenced the design of the bridge set and the location of the turbolift in relation to the positioning and dramatic composition of the series' star money player - the Captain. The positioning of the lift to the left rear of the captain would allow for two things: one, to maintain the direction of travel consistent with the exterior model shots, and, two, to allow for the entrance and exit of cast members into and out of a scene, while maintaining the "con" in the shot AND keeping with the on-screen direction of travel.

As to the models themselves: the realities of production created a situation where the large, 11-foot "hero" model could only be photographed from the right side, as the left side was not finished and had electrical wire and cables hanging out in order to provide power for internal lights and motors in order to give the ship "life". If the ship was ever to be seen from the left side, it was necessary for the physical design of the ship to be symmetrical so that the right-side image could be optically "flipped" to create a shot of the "left" side of the ship. Hence, the turbolift at the rear of the dome was centered.

You must consider the production practicalities when trying to provide credible arguments on whether the bridge should face directly forward or not, since it was those circumstances that created the discrepency in the first place.

If the "Trek" universe were real, then the bridge could have been either facing forward with a centered bridge turbolift directly behind the captain, or a wider section behind the bridge on the exterior of the ship would allow for the bridge configuration like what was seen on the show - or any fictional explanation that you would want to come up with to explain it. But, in reality, we have to deal with the infuence that the production had on determining what was where on the models and in the bridge set.


ACE


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I agree with about half of that, especially the bit about taking into account the realities of the production necessities (that's also the best explanation I've seen yet for locating the external tube bit directly to aft).

However, the rationales we're trying to figure out are within the Star Trek universe, so the Incredible Shrinking/Growing Starship isn't really an option. 

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if never was a concept that had the turbolift open to the rear (the early early painting by Pato Guzman looks more like the bridge of the Enterprise-D or maybe Voyager, so if anything, it started big and started shrinking in).

We're drifting right into the "how big was the TOS Enterprise" subject, so we might want to redirect this line of discussion back into that one, provided it can be dug back up.

As far as the bridge goes, I think this last little flurry has effectively nailed it down.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Clarification time: The "you" in that statement was mainly MGagen, not you specifically, since in that pic, I used elements that came from him (and it was in playing around with them that I noticed that he still had the production version dome at 41 feet and not 44 {see? Those extra few feet make a big difference when you extend things out}).


You are wrong again, as usual, when it comes to issues of scale. The dome in my illustration is taken directly from Alan Sinclair's Revision C blueprint (as indicated on my drawing). This is his latest version and scales up to 44'-9" -- exactly the size it appears on my drawing. The Jefferies Bridge image is scaled to the dimensioned drawing showing a platform of 36' in diameter. The problem comes from you not handling my file correctly.

I will give you this: I was unaware that the photo host I have been using strips out my resolution marker and rescales the image to 72dpi. This makes my 1" = 1' legend a little hard to understand.  If you open my original image and reset the scale to 12dpi (while not resampling the pixels), you'll find you can measure directly in the document with your program's ruler.

Your edit of my image has the following problems:

Problem #1 - _A cumulative error in your measurement._
You started with a small ruler that you copied and rescaled from an earlier drawing of mine. Then you duplicated it to build up your longer rulers. This added the minor scale error that is not apparent in a short measure repeatedly along its length. When I reset the resolution to 12dpi I find that you've really rendered the dome as 46'-9" across. Remember that you are working in a pixel editor. Better working methods will yield surer results. For instance, I chose 12dpi advisedly, because it divides each inch into 12 pixels; at a scale of 1" = 1' that means each pixel equals exactly 1 inch. Because of that, I can measure with perfect accuracy over as long a distance I wish and be exact to the nearest inch. There is no cumulative error.

Problem #2- _You scaled the dome completely on the right side._
You didn't need to scale the dome at all, as indicated above; but when you did you added the extra space to the right side of the image. This makes things look better for your case than they actually are, even with a larger dome -- since the bridge is no longer centered in your drawing.

As you can see, you're still far from having "effectively nailed it down."

Since you are off-base in your criticism of my drawing I'd like to ask you to revisit your work and post a correction. If you don't want to -- or still don't think there is a need -- I'll be glad to post a new version of your image graphically illustrating the flaws I've mentioned above.

Mark


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Trek Ace said:


> When the scale of the ship was changed for the series, the bottom of the dome was cut off and discarded, with only the top portion retained on the models to represent the new, single-deck height.


Trek Ace,

Keep in mind that the rescale happened on paper before the model was even delivered to the studio. During the series revision, they appear to have lowered the bridge dome for mainly for aesthetic reasons. The taller pilot dome represented the whole bridge deck, the shorter series version contains only the upper two thirds (the rest being lowered into the teardrop).




> As to the models themselves: the realities of production created a situation where the large, 11-foot "hero" model could only be photographed from the right side, as the left side was not finished and had electrical wire and cables hanging out in order to provide power for internal lights and motors in order to give the ship "life". If the ship was ever to be seen from the left side, it was necessary for the physical design of the ship to be symmetrical so that the right-side image could be optically "flipped" to create a shot of the "left" side of the ship. Hence, the turbolift at the rear of the dome was centered.


Brilliant! I had never considered this. This may have been the prime reason Jefferies was willing to accept the skewed bridge: a real world production concern that the model be "flippable" optically to show the other side. We're talking about the design phase here, early in the series, when they were thinking about what they were planning to do. Since they rarely ever did this in practice, I hadn't given this point the weight it deserves. 

By Jove, I think you're on to something. This is the kind of insight that comes to light in threads like these that make all the head-butting worth while.

Mark


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

FYI,

I have updated my "CRAsWaterloo" image over Photobucket. The only change was the addition of the rest of the scale information "@ 12 dpi" and an integrated scale. This will make it easier to accurately evaluate my work -- since I have been made aware that Photobucket strips the dpi marker from the file (effectively rescaling the image by setting it to 72 dpi).

Here it is:










Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Lessee....you're trying to crucify me over a rough estimate?

When did I ever say I was committed to the pilot dome being *exactly* fifty feet in diameter? If anything, I've been saying it was probably a little bigger.

*Have you factored that into your in-depth analysis, bub?*


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Lessee....you're trying to crucify me over a rough estimate?


Sad violins, I keep hearing sad violins...



> When did I ever say I was committed to the pilot dome being *exactly* fifty feet in diameter? If anything, I've been saying it was probably a little bigger.


I never claimed you said "*exactly* fifty feet," but you did say at at one point that you figured it _was_ fifty feet. I can give you an exact citation, if I must. 

Now the only way I can respond to your arguments (excuse me, _crucify you_) is if I use what you've actually said. In this case, I used Sinclair, because you said he's the most accurate; and I used the Jefferies bridge which we'd finally agreed was accurately scaled; and put them together. The drawing is accurate. The chips fall where you see them.



> *Have you factored that into your in-depth analysis, bub?*


As is obvious from the image, even several feet won't help you.

So it's "Bub" now... have you run out of "Sparkys"?

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

MGagen said:


> Brilliant! I had never considered this. This may have been the prime reason Jefferies was willing to accept the skewed bridge: a real world production concern that the model be "flippable" optically to show the other side. We're talking about the design phase here, early in the series, when they were thinking about what they were planning to do. Since they rarely ever did this in practice, I hadn't given this point the weight it deserves.


You have yet to show that anyone on the show ever even _considered_ the possibility that the bridge faced anywhere but straight ahead, let alone "accepted" it.

At most, you might get a "whoops, didn't notice that, sorry" kind of response, but everything I've seen and heard tells me that throughout the run, the bridge faced forward, and the surface details on the model were just that, surface details. It's entirely possible that Jefferies put that dowel rod at the back of that dome because it just needed something there to look interesting (which was the way he did a lot of his design work for the show, make something that looked interesting and logical and appears to serve some purpose, but not much more thought behind it than that, like the Jefferies tubes and Engineering in general).

And before you accuse me of trying to read the minds of the folks involved, *what the frell do you think you're doing every time you state, unequivocably, that the producers and designers "accepted" anything?* I think the stronger case is that it never occured to them that there was an apparent disconnect between the set and the model, or if it did, it was shelved in favor of more pressing concerns. 

Another factor might be that the tube was never designated as anything in the first place, turboshaft, subspace radio array, milk shake dispenser, whatever. It just looked interesting, provided one more move away from the standard flying saucer motif, and so on, so nobody drew a connection because there was never a connection to make. The ship went along with the bridge facing forward, that thing on the back of the dome, and all was bright and merry.

Then Franz Joseph sets about doing his deck plans, and tries to wrap his head around the bridge and tries to resolve the typical result of when good designers try to put together new and interesting concepts on too short a schedule and not enough money. Namely, the two pieces, the internal set and the external hull, don't fit unless you do some very strange things. Rather than resolve the situation so that the bridge made more sense, he punted and just twisted the works to port to fit the apparent arrangement on the exterior. Everyone goes along with it 1) because it means royalty payments, 2) they never determined what that doohickey was anyway, so what the hell, and 3) it's a relatively dead project that nobody was gonna revisit anyway, so what's the difference? This would especially apply to one Eugene Wesley Roddenberry.

All of which really doesn't matter a helluva lot to this discussion, but at least we need to be honest about the context in which certain decisions were made, or not made, with regard to the bridge. Far too often, we tend to ascribe an unwarranted level of brilliance and genius to the folks who worked on Star Trek. Yes, they were inspired and brilliant, and there were certain flashes of genius, but let's stop going overboard. They were writers, producers, and designers working on a show where they essentially had to reinvent the wheel to do even half of what they wanted. And they had to do it on a very tight schedule and with a very limited budget. They sure as hell didn't have the foresight to plan out the technical details to the degree most folks like to think ("Gee, we'd better take another run at the bridge, 'cause in around ten years, some aerospace designer is gonna look at this and do some deck plans that are all wrong, which only gonna piss off some kid in Denver, and in around twenty years after that, the same kid in Denver is gonna take another run at it and just cause all kinds of holy heck"). They got the general theory behind certain things, put together a reasonable sounding facade, and moved on to the next thing. That others have been able to build on what they started is certainly a credit to their getting the overall generalities right, but anything beyond that is ridiculous.

And we really need to do a better job of recongizing the screw-ups and oversights for what they are, and not wrapping ourselves into logical knots under the pretense that "well, they must've accepted it because of...". I suspect that if they were particularly concerned about any correlation between the tube on the back of the dome and the location of the turbolift on the bridge set, the better option would've been to just take the damn dowel rod off entirely and let folks assume everything is within the dome, and still maintain the external symetry of the model, for that occasional "port side" shot with the reversed decals. Like i said, I don't think it ever occured to them.

That's why I'm sticking with the bridge facing forward, because that's clearly what they thought on the show, and why I'm working on incorporating _that_ with the external design, and not accepting certain assertions, regardless of the geometric justifications or how longstanding they may be.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Getting back on subject, try the pilot dome with a diameter of 53.5 feet. Might have to expand the production dome to 45 feet even to smooth that out, but give it a shot.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> You have yet to show that anyone on the show ever even _considered_ the possibility that the bridge faced anywhere but straight ahead, let alone "accepted" it.


Anyone whose job it was to pay attention to such details would have had at least a grasp of fundamental geometry. The implications of the model vs. the set are so blatently obvious that it takes a supreme act of the will (or ignorance) to miss it.



> It's entirely possible that Jefferies put that dowel rod at the back of that dome because it just needed something there to look interesting


You seem to believe that no one is any more competent than you. :lol: 



> Then Franz Joseph sets about doing his deck plans...


FJ's really a personal bug-a-boo for you, isn't he? Never mind that he only noticed the obvious, just like everyone before him who took time to look (like 7-year-old yours truly).



> the two pieces, the internal set and the external hull, don't fit unless you do some very strange things.


Yes, like a 2-year-old does with a toy: You fit the square peg into the square hole by turning it until it clicks perfectly into place. :roll: 



> That's why I'm sticking with the bridge facing forward, because that's clearly what they thought on the show, and why I'm working on incorporating _that_ with the external design, and not accepting certain assertions, regardless of the geometric justifications or how longstanding they may be.


Has anyone said you _can't_ have a forward-facing bridge? More to the point, have _I_ ever said you can't have a forward facing bridge? *NO!* I've said you can't have one where Jefferies indicates it without compromising either the model, the set, or lowering it almost entirely out of the dome. I said as much the first time I posted in your thread, and I still say the same thing now. Consistently. 

And where are we now after 13 months? You're finally resolved to lower your bridge almost entirely out of the dome. 

And yet you still quibble and whine. What you've proven this is _really_ about for you is that you can't abide anyone thinking that Jefferies and company knew there was a problem and decided to live with a skewed bridge. And this is what sticks in you craw: the plain evidence points to a skewed bridge with the turbo tube being the turbo tube. You don't like this, so you come up with elaborate scenarios to try to explain it away. It's a subspace antenna, it's the ships head, it's just a greeblie MJ stuck on to make it look nice. 

You're the one who has to prove a negative -- that this little feature which is in the right place, is the right size, and even replicates itself when MJ adds another turbolift in Phase II, isn't what it so obviously is.

However, I've grown weary of responding to you. You seem to be so blinkered by your ego that you're impervious to reason. This long ago became a case of casting pearls before swine (or lassies, in your case). From here on out I'll gladly respond to others' posts; or, I'll chime in with a correction if they show signs of buying one of your whoppers, or are confused by your doodles. 

Beyond that, I have nothing more to say to you on this subject.

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> The implications of the model vs. the set are so blatently obvious that it takes a supreme act of the will (or ignorance) to miss it.
> 
> You seem to believe that no one is any more competent than you. :lol:
> ...
> Yes, like a 2-year-old does with a toy: You fit the square peg into the square hole by turning it until it clicks perfectly into place. :roll:


:lol:

That takes the prize of most enjoyable post in this thread to date. Thanks!


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

MGagen does his best impression of Thulsa Doom (from Conan):

"Crucify him on the tree of woah..."


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Did anyone notice that MGagen didn't provide a straight answer to even one of the questions I posed?


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> MGagen said:
> 
> 
> > The implications of the model vs. the set are so blatently obvious that it takes a supreme act of the will (or ignorance) to miss it.
> ...


You're quite welcome.  

I feel much better now that I finally took to heart the words of the old proverb:

"It's no use trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes _your_ time and annoys the pig." 

Even though the issue is pretty well settled, I'm still open to discussing it with _just about_ anyone.

Mark


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Hey,

Did anyone notice in _The Wrath of Khan_ that the _Reliant_ bridge dome had a rear box just like the refit _Enterprise_, only the _Reliant_ bridge set had a single, centered turbolift, directly behind the captain's chair?

Kind of a reverse irony. Ain't it?


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> Yup, he posted here on this forum today, as a matter of fact. He goes by the username Wizardofflight.
> I can't think of the the name of the guy that died in the Iowa turret explosion a few years back, but perhaps he's the one Chuck's thinking of.


Oops!

Yep uss_columbia, I was thinking of Allen Everhart. Sorry for my mistake. :freak:


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> :lol:
> 
> That takes the prize of most enjoyable post in this thread to date. Thanks!


They're are almost all enjoyable. Though I like the posts that contain sketches and you guys discuss the source of your evidence, reasoning, or just plain invented-from-necessity solutions, and less of the ones where you just go off on one another.

We can all disagree all day long on any subject, let's just not let it degrade into a mutual mocking contest.

Compare evidence and ideas and lay'em on the table for all the world to see. Let people draw their own conclusions.

We're all Trek nerds here...
I've got an old LP of Leonard Nimoy singing Combaya' laying around somewhere if it would help.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Back to the topic of the original bridge offset.

These are direct quotes from Matt Jefferies from eight years ago about set designs on _Star Trek_, and the pressures an art director faces in the process:

_*"Star Trek was nothing like anything before. Coming up with ideas was the biggest problem. There just weren't enough hours in a day or a week for me. On the pilot, they were filming on one part of the set and I was chalking in another part at the same time.*

*Designing for a show - basically, you've got to satisfy the producers - for Star Trek, it was Gene and Herb; you've got to satisfy the studio; you've got to satisfy the network that's putting up the money; and you've got to keep the director happy. If he doesn't like what you've created, you stand a good chance of not getting he show finished on time. It's also got to work for the cameraman and the soundman, too. On top of all that, you've got to deliver it on time and for the money. If it looks good, that's a plus. But those other requirements have to be met first . You can come up with the most beautiful design in the world, but if you can't deliver it on time and within budget, you've blown it. As far as I'm concerned, if something looked good on that show, it was an accident, because the other concerns were more important."*
_

This may explain why the bridge offset was never really addressed during the run of the original show. If you work in television and film (as I do), then you fully understand the constant production pressures and budgetary/time limitations that are placed upon you. This situation has not improved in the past forty years since the original _Star Trek_ began production.


BTW, we can all be friends here. You fellows have done a lot of work and came up with a lot of very good arguments and opinions about this subject. I know that this process can be very frustrating and tempers can sometimes flare. I work with production teams all the time. I know this to be true. In any collaboration, there needs to be cooperation, patience, and , often most important, a good sense of humor when approaching a situation like this. This is hard work!

Please step back and take a deep breath, give bruised egos a rest, and come back with renewed enthusiasm. Matt and John Jefferies, Pato Guzman, Roland Brooks, Roy Long and the rest of the very talented and creative folks on _Star Trek_ worked 18+ hour work days - often seven days a week straight for many weeks at a time, in order to design, create and construct the many sets, props and models required in order to deliver this show for the rest of us to enjoy and happily nitpick over. It wasn't easy for them, either! 


Sincerely,

ACE


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Trek Ace said:


> Hey,
> 
> Did anyone notice in _The Wrath of Khan_ that the _Reliant_ bridge dome had a rear box just like the refit _Enterprise_, only the _Reliant_ bridge set had a single, centered turbolift, directly behind the captain's chair?
> 
> Kind of a reverse irony. Ain't it?


I had forgotten that. Great point. 

I guess once you've added the room for it, you could have one, two or even three turbos on the bridge. 

Mark


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Trek Ace said:


> This may explain why the bridge offset was never really addressed during the run of the original show. If you work in television and film (as I do), then you fully understand the constant production pressures and budgetary/time limitations that are placed upon you.


I tend to think they didn't "address" it because, although they decided to live with it, they didn't want to call attention to it. It's better to let sleeping dogs lie.

If you mean "why they didn't _move_ the turbolift tube," it seems doubtful that it was either time or budget considerations that kept them from doing it. After all, they had the time and budget to do all kinds of diddling with the model before they were happy with it -- even removing the turbo tube and bridge dome for alterations.

I really like your point about needing to optically flip the model. That seems to me to be the likeliest reason they decided to "bite the bullet."

Mark


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

This is illustrative of what I referred to in an earlier post about the offset bridge being depicted in the show. Whenever the ship would get hit, or roll on the Z-axis in an evasive maneuver, the bridge shot would always show the roll axis centered between the elevator doors and the panel just right of the main viewscreen.

Just something else to chew on.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

How 'bout another shot?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Aw, heck! Just one more.

Third time's the charm!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

They always depicted the camera looking from the front of the ship along the Z-axis toward the back when the ship would roll. Notice the location of the turbolift and the bridge orientation in these shots.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

More like the standard way to show the ship was shaking was to tilt the camera one way or the other, regardless of whatever implication it might have for some alleged arrangement of the ship.

In other words, the tilt of the camera was more for dramatic reasons than the placement of the turbolift in the first place.

Besides, did anybody else notice that Kirk and Uhura seem to be falling *uphill* in those "Balance of Terror" screencaps? What does _that_ tell ya?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

*Bridge Dome*

Check out this shot showing the domed ceiling inside the pilot version bridge!










Steve...


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Captain April said:


> More like the standard way to show the ship was shaking was to tilt the camera one way or the other, regardless of whatever implication it might have for some alleged arrangement of the ship.


 Yes, the way they rocked the ship was to tilt the camera. The placement was more deliberate than you may realize.



> In other words, the tilt of the camera was more for dramatic reasons than the placement of the turbolift in the first place.


 Again, yes, the tilting camera was for dramatic reasons. But, it was always placed at the same fore/aft axis on the bridge. If the bridge faced directly forward, they would have placed the camera directly in front of the helm console looking aft to Uhura's station and rolled the camera along THAT axis.



> Besides, did anybody else notice that Kirk and Uhura seem to be falling *uphill* in those "Balance of Terror" screencaps? What does _that_ tell ya?


 If you watch the clip in motion, you will see that they are thrown starboard and run/toss themselves "uphill" to the port to recover.

There is a lot of visual evidence present in the episodes. You don't have to agree with me on my observations, but just take into account what was depicted with a forensic approach to the matter and a lot of the questions may answer themselves.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I agree with your tilt-axis theory centered on the turbolift. I like that the bridge is off angle. I think it would have been boring to have everything symetrical on each side of the captians chair. There are no actual windows on the bridge - just viewscreens. It doesn't have to face straight ahead. In space there is no up/down/left/right. I believe Scotty mentioned the term inertial dampers which explains why they never feel the ship accelerating to warp speed or slowing down. The bridge could have faced backwards with the turbolift on the other side and would still be functional. Just accept it for what it is without overthinking it. Also, in the cutaways presented here I think the bridge would be closer up to the ceiling dome. The picture I posted back a few messages implies an interior dome is over the bridge. Plus the outside shots from the cage episode looking down into the bridge implies that too, even though the inset live action scene is rather off angle it is only for dramatic effect for the zoom from the outside in.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

After that eloquent statement about the pressures of television production and all the various considerations and people who need to be pleased and how the overriding concern is mainly just how it looks on screen, _you go in the exact opposite direction and try and do a forensic examination of dramatic camera angles?_ All they were doing was trying to convey that the ship was being hit, not establish the location of the ship's center of gravity. You know bloody well what would've happened if someone tried to spent the time to plot out camera movements based upon some theoretical arrangement of the ship, he would've been tossed off the lot and replaced with someone who'll just shoot the damn scene and move on to the next bit.

Besides, it's already been established that the attitude of the producers, directors, et al, was that _*the bridge faced forward.*_ All the forensic examinations of contrived dramatic camera angles in the world ain't gonna change that.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That picture deserves a closer look...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Steve Mavronis said:


> The bridge could have faced backwards with the turbolift on the other side and would still be functional.


Wasn't that precisely how one of the small AMT model kits was made? I think it was one of the three ship kits that had the turbo tube mistakenly situated on the forward side of the bridge dome. :roll: 

Also, did anyone else pick up on CA's bait and switch in his last post? One vague "I guess I always figured it faced forward" (or words to that effect) from Bob Justman suddenly became the established "attitude of the producers, directors, et al."

Ain't that rich? :lol: 

Mark


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Captain April said:


> After that eloquent statement about the pressures of television production and all the various considerations and people who need to be pleased and how the overriding concern is mainly just how it looks on screen, _you go in the exact opposite direction and try and do a forensic examination of dramatic camera angles?_


 The eloquent statement was from Matt Jefferies himself. 

The job of the art director is to provide the producers and director the backgrounds (sets) needed in order to shoot the scene (and do it quickly). 

How is examining dramatic camera angles going in the opposite direction?



> All they were doing was trying to convey that the ship was being hit, not establish the location of the ship's center of gravity. You know bloody well what would've happened if someone tried to spent the time to plot out camera movements based upon some theoretical arrangement of the ship, he would've been tossed off the lot and replaced with someone who'll just shoot the damn scene and move on to the next bit.


 Actually, just the opposite. All camera setups and angles are very carefully thought out, blocked, and rehearsed for each and every scene shot. It's actually everything else in the production (i.e. set construction) that's rushed so that the director can have the maximum amount of time he needs in order to shoot the required amount of setups per day to keep the show on schedule. The director would certainly _not_ have been "_tossed off the lot and replaced with someone who'll just shoot the damn scene and move on to the next bit_" for selecting dramatic camera angles to best convey the scene and tell the story in the most effective way.

*After all, that's what a DIRECTOR does. That's exactly why he is hired and what he's there for.*



> Besides, it's already been established that the attitude of the producers, directors, et al, was that _*the bridge faced forward. *_


 Who's attitude? Who established it?



> All the forensic examinations of contrived dramatic camera angles in the world ain't gonna change that.


 Again, the camera angles are not contrived, they're deliberate. I didn't make them up. They have existed on film for nearly forty years now. Take a look for yourself.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I was being sarcastic saying the bridge could have faced backwards and still be functional. I didn't mean it literally, it was just to illustrate a point. I accept that the bridge did face generally forward, but at an angle to the centerline of the ship. The elevator is on the centerline as far as I'm concerned since it agrees with the nub in back of the bridge on the outside of the ship. The way they built the set and filmed it at that angle was just to make it look interesting to the viewer and not block actors in the scene too badly. This is not an actual real spaceship! I like spaceship interior designs that have unusual vantage points. Look at the bridge of the Discovery in 2001. Forward from the pilots seat was above his head!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

There's the next turbolift stop up ahead. Your desitination.....The Twilight Zone.....


----------



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

I think we're beating a dead horse un-necessarily.

All of us have pretty much agreed that it makes sense that the bridge was always meant to face forward. It won't fit that way unless sunken.

Why don't you guys just draw your own blueprints of how that might work and call it a day?

By the way, what are the accurate dimensions of the bridge interior(including turbolift alcove and turbolift)?

What are the best sources for that info?


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> By the way, what are the accurate dimensions of the bridge interior(including turbolift alcove and turbolift)?
> 
> What are the best sources for that info?


Yes, that was the subject of this thread before it was derailed onto the orientation issue.

McMaster is closest. I don't recall exactly what his maximum dimension is, but it is within a couple of inches of the Desilu soundstage drawing. His turbo offset is very close, too. Until the actual construction plans turn up, or we can wheedle the figures from the New Voyages folks, that's the best we can do.

Mark


----------



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

MGagen said:


> Yes, that was the subject of this thread before it was derailed onto the orientation issue.
> 
> McMaster is closest. I don't recall exactly what his maximum dimension is, but it is within a couple of inches of the Desilu soundstage drawing. His turbo offset is very close, too. Until the actual construction plans turn up, or we can wheedle the figures from the New Voyages folks, that's the best we can do.
> 
> Mark


I really liked his Romulan BOP prints too, at least his exteriors. The interiors looked like it should have had a few more decks, but his exteriors were gorgeous.

Does anyone have any info on what his source material for the prints were?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I think we're beating a dead horse un-necessarily.


Into a fine paste.



> All of us have pretty much agreed that it makes sense that the bridge was always meant to face forward. It won't fit that way unless sunken.
> 
> Why don't you guys just draw your own blueprints of how that might work and call it a day?


The only real question has been how much, and the relationship with the exterior dome. I think the pertinent questions have been answered, for the most part; I just wish the the process of getting those answers wasn't the rough equivelant of doing a root canal on an aligator without novacaine.



> By the way, what are the accurate dimensions of the bridge interior(including turbolift alcove and turbolift)?
> 
> What are the best sources for that info?


Side to side, the bridge appears to be right about 31 feet wide, going from the back of each console. The turbolift alcove back to the back wall of the turbolift cab seems to extend out about another ten feet.

What this means for the exterior hull is this: To have the bridge facing forward under the pilot version dome, the bridge interior needs to be sunken down to about the level of the consoles , with the diameter of the bridge dome at that level at around 53 1/2 feet (a size which, to me at least, seems within the margin of error for estimates of the size of that dome). For the production version, just lower the whole works down until what's left sticking above is between 44.9 and 45 feet in diameter.

And I think _that_ is the simplest solution to the issue, with nothing being pointed off in strange directions for no real reason than some blind tradition.


----------



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

Thanks for the info guys.
I have the McMasters bridge blueprints.
Have either of you tried to modify them slightly to correct what you see as errors?
What would be involved in "correcting" them, given the info available?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Captain April said:


> What this means for the exterior hull is this: To have the bridge facing forward under the pilot version dome, the bridge interior needs to be sunken down to about the level of the consoles , with the diameter of the bridge dome at that level at around 53 1/2 feet (a size which, to me at least, seems within the margin of error for estimates of the size of that dome). For the production version, just lower the whole works down until what's left sticking above is between 44.9 and 45 feet in diameter.


I re-read this entire thread last night and IMHO I think the bridge ceiling (whatever the bridge orientation) should be up fairly close to the outer clear dome, with the outside elevator nub determining it's ultimate height. That would fit in with the shots from TOS showing the outside looking into the bridge. You don't really "have to" fit the elevator offset inside the outer dome hull for a forward facing bridge:

As far as the bridge orientation thats a matter of personal preference I understand and respect that but this is what I would consider as the two best options:

- If you like it offset thats fine and it matches up to the outer dome nicely. Nothing needs to be changed.

- If you really like it forward facing why not just swap Uhura's station position with the elevator section? Actually it would make more sense to slide her's, Spock's, and Scotty's stations to be relative to TOS position order but with the elevator behind the captain's chair and the viewscreen section still in front. 

But lowering the overall vertical position of the bridge to almost below the entire outer dome hull section just to make an offset elevator fit inside outer hull seems almost insane and way to much of an overboard adjustment to me. From the outside, that shot I mentioned above would be impossible. All you would see is a deep cylindrical shaft before the interior of the bridge would be visible from the outside. That is why this solution bothers me the most. 

I know opinions are strong in here over this issue so please don't take this as a personal attack. Ultimately it is just a matter of personal preference.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I think we're beating a dead horse un-necessarily.


Agreed.




> All of us have pretty much agreed that it makes sense that the bridge was always meant to face forward.


I think it's fair to say that almost all of us would prefer a forward-facing bridge. Some of us are not willing to sacrifice position in the dome to acheive this, though. Some of us have little problem accepting that the bridge didn't end up forward-facing.




> I have the McMasters bridge blueprints.
> What would be involved in "correcting" them, given the info available?


There's not sufficient available information for correcting them, until such time as someone gets his eyes on the construction prints. There may be some minor errors in interior diameter and profile, probably not worth correcting. There may also be a minor problem with depth of turbolift alcove, which may or may not be worth correcting.


Paul


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> - If you really like it forward facing why not just swap Uhura's station position with the elevator section? Actually it would make more sense to slide her's, Spock's, and Scotty's stations to be relative to TOS position order but with the elevator behind the captain's chair and the viewscreen section still in front.
> 
> But lowering the overall vertical position of the bridge to almost below the entire outer dome hull section just to make an offset elevator fit inside outer hull seems almost insane and way to much of an overboard adjustment to me. From the outside, that shot I mentioned above would be impossible. All you would see is a deep cylindrical shaft before the interior of the bridge would be visible from the outside. That is why this solution bothers me the most.


I wholeheartedly agree here!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I think Captain April is crying crocodile tears over his alligator root canal. :lol:

This is what I mean:



Captain April said:


> The only real question has been how much [the bridge needs to be sunk], and the relationship with the exterior dome. I think the pertinent questions have been answered, for the most part; I just wish the the process of getting those answers wasn't the rough equivelant of doing a root canal on an aligator without novacaine.


This solution was shown to him by myself and several others over a year ago in his blueprint thread over on TrekBBS. We demonstrated very clearly that to rotate the bridge without altering the scales involved meant you had to drop it almost all the way out of the dome.

The long tortuous process he laments has been getting *him* to admit this. He doggedly maintained up until very recently that the bridge could be rotated in place inside the dome with only "minor" adjustments.

I find it humorous that in his "dental" metaphor, _he's the alligator_.

Now to answer Chuck P.R.'s question about dimensions. I have just made a very careful new study of the plans involved and the figures I have come up with are as follows. Make of them what you will. These are likely pretty close to the real numbers, but until those construction plans show up we'll have to be content with intelligent guesswork:

The Desilu soundstage bridge drawing, when scaled so the platform matches the 36 foot figure gleaned from the Jefferies wedge sketch, measures 32' interior diameter (from the deepest part of the consoles). The turbolift measures 7' 6" in diameter, with it's center offset from the center of the bridge by 21' 9-1/2".

The McMaster bridge drawing measures 30' 9" interior diameter. His turbolift is 7' in diameter, with it's center offset from the center of the bridge by 20' 9".

When overlaid on each other, there seems to be a 4 to 5 percent discrepancy in size with the McMaster being smaller. When scaled visually to each other, there are very minor differences in detail. The size difference may be due to scaling errors in each direction, but I don't know how to qualify which way the error lies, or how far between.

On the subject of whether to sink the bridge or reshuffle the stations, I know it will shock you all, but given the two alternatives *I'd side with Captain April.* I think the example of the "looking in the top" scene doesn't hold water for two reasons. 1) The scene is so clumsily constructed that it can't be trusted. 2) This is the pilot bridge dome and thus doesn't necessarily depict how things would be with the production version. Sinking the bridge until the turbolift is contained within the teardrop at least preserves both things we have clearly seen: the exterior hull and the interior set.

Of course, we must be honest that this is an accommodation to taste that Matt Jefferies never envisioned.

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> On the subject of whether to sink the bridge or reshuffle the stations, I know it will shock you all, but given the two alternatives *I'd side with Captain April.*...
> 
> Of course, we must be honest that this is an accommodation to taste that Matt Jefferies never envisioned.


Just curious...
You don't actually prefer sinking the bridge to accepting a non-forward-facing bridge, though, do you?

Paul


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> Just curious...
> You don't actually prefer sinking the bridge to accepting a non-forward-facing bridge, though, do you?
> 
> Paul



No. Even though I would prefer to have it face forward, I must side with Jefferies and accept that it was skewed. 

But I don't begrudge anyone making plans that show it lowered enough to rotate. I don't even object to someone expanding the dome to rotate it in place as long as they don't claim to be depicting the ship as it was.

My only problem has been with those who have claimed it can rotate in place as is... 

...or that Jefferies depicted it as forward facing...

...or who have fudged the scale to make it _look_ like it fits and claim they haven't cheated. 

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Thanks for the info guys.
> I have the McMasters bridge blueprints.
> Have either of you tried to modify them slightly to correct what you see as errors?
> What would be involved in "correcting" them, given the info available?


The only real goof I see with the McMaster blueprints at this point is the trubolift alcove, although I'd have to do a direct comparison to be sure.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Steve Mavronis said:


> I re-read this entire thread last night and IMHO I think the bridge ceiling (whatever the bridge orientation) should be up fairly close to the outer clear dome, with the outside elevator nub determining it's ultimate height. That would fit in with the shots from TOS showing the outside looking into the bridge. You don't really "have to" fit the elevator offset inside the outer dome hull for a forward facing bridge:
> 
> As far as the bridge orientation thats a matter of personal preference I understand and respect that but this is what I would consider as the two best options:
> 
> ...


Here's the bit you're forgetting: We only had that shot once, in the opening of "The Cage", when the bridge dome was clearly much taller (way too tall for that ceiling in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" to be close to the top). With the refurbishing of the model prior to regular production, we got a much shorter bridge dome, and never did get another establishing shot to tell us that the bridge was in the exact same place. So all we can say with any certainty is that, in "The Cage" and probably in "WNMHGB", the bridge was up in the dome (and, as implied by that zoom-in, faced forward).

So there's really nothing to say that the bridge wasn't lowered down between the pilots and the first regular episode "The Corbomite Maneuver". In fact, Jefferies' cross-section drawing of the ship appears to show a sunken bridge, so there's also that in favor of the idea.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

MGagen said:


> No. Even though I would prefer to have it face forward, I must side with Jefferies and accept that it was skewed.
> 
> But I don't begrudge anyone making plans that show it lowered enough to rotate. I don't even object to someone expanding the dome to rotate it in place as long as they don't claim to be depicting the ship as it was.
> 
> ...


Looks like I'm gonna have to dig up my old posts.

But before I do that, I'd like to state again, for the record, that I do not believe that anybody on the show, Matt Jefferies, Gene Roddenberry, Bob Justman, whoever, "accepted" a skewed bridge, because I don't think they ever caught the discrepancy, at least not until Franz Joseph pointed it out when he did his deck plans, by which point, not a lot of people were all that concerned. If they did notice, they just figured the viewers either wouldn't give a rip, or assume the turbolift did something behind that wall that we weren't privy to.

As for sinking the dome all the way down, the main thing I was wanting was to maintain at least _some_ relationship with the dome. Taking the larger pilot dome into account made that possible. Plus, once that factor was added, then it really didn't matter about sinking it down, since the main objective at that point was just figuring out the particulars of fitting it inside the pilot dome.

Here's what should be the final version...


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Here's the bit you're forgetting: We only had that shot once, in the opening of "The Cage", when the bridge dome was clearly much taller (way too tall for that ceiling in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" to be close to the top). With the refurbishing of the model prior to regular production, we got a much shorter bridge dome, and never did get another establishing shot to tell us that the bridge was in the exact same place.


Remember its not a real ship! The model didn't have a little bridge inside. But that shot we do have shows the bridge was meant to be right below the clear dome. The clear dome is a big window on the ceiling of the bridge according to that shot. It is the top part of the bridge interior like a big skylight window. So if it were a real ship and they had to lower the domed hull, the most practical way would be to simply remove the deck that is right underneath the bridge deck along with it's surrounding hull structure.










Why would they go through the trouble in real life to remove the deck underneath and then telescopically lower the bridge inside too, also destroying part the exisiting top deck inside the teardrop structure just for one little elevator? Or did they need more attic space or something above the bridge? I don't think so.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Why go through the trouble of pointing the bridge 36 degrees to port, something that has never been done in the entire history of ship building?

All my version requires is moving the whole works straight down about ten feet (and there are plenty of reasons for lowering the bridge inside the ship).

And I have three tubes accessing the bridge level, not just one. Plus, I don't have the only access to the bridge exposed to open space, and sitting there as a big fat juicy target.

Besides, the ceiling we saw in WNMHGB looked pretty opaque. Like others have said, don't take that shot from "The Cage" too literally. Otherwise, we'll have to go into how it has the bridge pointing about 12 degrees to port and isn't terribly level.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's say that after Pike's time, they decided that it really doesn't make sense for the bridge to have a moonroof, so the ceiling was replaced with something a bit sterner, as well as being decidely non-transparent. Later, with the big refit in 2266, when the spiked nacelles were replaced with ones with swirly lights in the front, the bridge was also lowered down inside the superstructure, leaving only the upper half of the dome exposed, and the interior of the bridge now where the old briefing room was previously.

A helluva lot simpler than rotating the bridge, then having to do all sorts of odd things to the inertial dampeners in order to maintain the illusion to the bridge crew that they're still facing forward (if you wanna do a forensic examination of camera angles and directions folks fly when the ship gets hit, take a good long look at whenever the ship comes to a sudden stop, like "Arena" for example -- everyone lurches _forward_, towards the main viewscreen).

Sorry, but when you factor in all the other things that have to take place to make an offset bridge work, there's nothing simple about it. It winds up being a helluva lot more complicated.

And all just because there's a cylindircal thingie on the back of the dome? I don't think so...


----------



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

MGagen said:


> No. Even though I would prefer to have it face forward, I must side with Jefferies and accept that it was skewed.
> 
> But I don't begrudge anyone making plans that show it lowered enough to rotate. I don't even object to someone expanding the dome to rotate it in place as long as they don't claim to be depicting the ship as it was.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't the refit having two side mounted turbo-lifts seem to indicate that after he thought about it, Jefferies decided to indicate that the bridge was facing forward?

Or at the very least, that the new refit's bridge faced forward?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Wouldn't the refit having two side mounted turbo-lifts seem to indicate that after he thought about it, Jefferies decided to indicate that the bridge was facing forward? Or at the very least, that the new refit's bridge faced forward?


I agree with that but all this goes back to what was finally presented to us (not pre-pilot design ideas) in TOS, and sounds too much like revisionist history forward and backward through the Trek timeline. I don't buy excuses like lowering the bridge into the teardrop leaves it less exposed to attack. I guess I should feel sorry for any crewmate with a window in their room. Why bother with Shield Technology if that were the case? Everyone knows once the shields are down during an attack the whole ship is history. Maybe I'm a purest or something with TOS so please bear with me.

The refit doesn't even match up to the TOS ship dimensionally. You can't take a model of TOS ship and turn it into the refit version without busting everything up. While the storyline calls it a refit it is more proper to call it a complete rebuild. Nothing matches up. It would be cheaper in real life to build a new ship from scratch and scrap the TOS ship.

I'm okay with minor TOS bridge modications so long as it stays right under the clear dome without sinking it down a deck and a half. All that really has to be done is rotate the bridge 36 degrees clockwise and swap the elevator section to be right behind the captain's station to have a forward facing bridge. That seems the least drastic approach if you don't want an offset bridge, which would require no changes.


----------



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

Steve Mavronis said:


> I agree with that but all this goes back to what was finally presented to us (not pre-pilot design ideas) in TOS, and sounds too much like revisionist history forward and backward through the Trek timeline. I don't buy excuses like lowering the bridge into the teardrop leaves it less exposed to attack. I guess I should feel sorry for any crewmate with a window in their room. Why bother with Shield Technology if that were the case? Everyone knows once the shields are down during an attack the whole ship is history. Maybe I'm a purest or something with TOS so please bear with me.
> 
> The refit doesn't even match up to the TOS ship dimensionally. You can't take a model of TOS ship and turn it into the refit version without busting everything up. While the storyline calls it a refit it is more proper to call it a complete rebuild. Nothing matches up. It would be cheaper in real life to build a new ship from scratch and scrap the TOS ship.
> 
> I'm okay with minor TOS bridge modications so long as it stays right under the clear dome without sinking it down a deck and a half. All that really has to be done is rotate the bridge 36 degrees clockwise and swap the elevator section to be right behind the captain's station to have a forward facing bridge. That seems the least drastic approach if you don't want an offset bridge, which would require no changes.


Actually I can't agree it is revisionist history, as whether or not the bridge faced forward was never covered in TOS.

It can't be revisionist history if there is no history to revise.

It seems obvious that the 36 degree thing was an explanation done way after the fact.

I think Jefferies making two side turbolifts in the refit at least is a little authoritative, especially since the issue was never addressed in TOS.

Both ships were his baby. If he didn't address it the first time and clarified it the second, I think the logical assumption would be that that's the way he meant it to appear in the unspecified first instance.

On the issue of the two ships not matching up, not much can be done about that, there were even differences with the Phase II ship. But I doubt we should infer from that that the general structure of the bridge design can't be used to infer Jefferies original intent(that was unaddressed in TOS).

It's possible, just not likely.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Wouldn't the refit having two side mounted turbo-lifts seem to indicate that after he thought about it, Jefferies decided to indicate that the bridge was facing forward?
> 
> Or at the very least, that the new refit's bridge faced forward?


There is no question that the bridge on the refit does face forward. But I think you're drawing precisely the wrong conclusion from the twin turbolift design. The dual tubes on a two turbolift bridge indicate that these features correspond (even without the conclusive scale evidence). The fact that the original only has one, dead aft, shows he knew the bridge was rotated. It also shows that, while he may have had to live with it at the time, he straightened things out when he got the chance.



> It seems obvious that the 36 degree thing was an explanation done way after the fact.


It's not an "explanation," it's a _conclusion_ drawn from evidence that was there all along. Because of the scale of the components involved, the tube at the back must be the turbolift. There is really no question about its orientation. Just like a child's puzzle, you rotate the piece until it drops into place. It's the only way it can fit. To suggest that Jefferies never made (or intended) the connection is to sell him WAY short. All of his work shows a level of conscientious attention to detail that makes that unthinkable.



Steve Mavronis said:


> The refit doesn't even match up to the TOS ship dimensionally.


But it did have a definite relationship to the TOS configuration in its original, Jefferies designed Phase II form. This was blown out of the window when Andrew Probert decided to alter the proportions. He did this because, even though the script called for it to be the same ship refitted, he wanted it to be a "whole new" vessel. 

The shape and even proportion of the primary and secondary hull of MJ's Phase II refit are still different from the TOS ship, but you can see how the original fits within it. There is a definite connection. What's more, the section view he drew that recently surfaced matches his original section view so closely that there is little doubt he took his original drawings as the starting point for the refit. The decks and even turbolift layouts correspond very closely. Even the hangar deck depicted is the classic layout.

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I was just reading one of the other bridge debate threads over at trekbbs, and came across this interesting post form ardidas sofia:



> I have to also recount a conversation with Todd Guenther recently, where he made an astute observation. It occured to him that the teardrop-shaped B/C deck was likely the original bridge as we have all speculated, and FJ seems to support in his Paul Newitt interview. But he goes further to ask why the bridge dome was always there, even on the early concept drawings, on top of that teardrop? If the bridge was in the teardrop, what purpose did that upper dome serve? He thinks the bridge dome on the drawings was meant to be that upper alcove on the bridge set, and that the bridge set was supposed to fill out the B/C deck. And here is the interesting part -- the teardrop is supposed to account for the change in the orientation of the bridge! The turbolift is to the portside aft with the bridge facing dead ahead, and the movement to a centerline tube is back towards the teardrop aft. When you look over the size of the bridge and the upper alcove, etc. and account for the increase from a 540 foot ship to 947 feet, it just about lines up. At least with my paper and straightedge calculations.
> 
> What this would mean is that when drawn, the bridge was on the B/C deck and the upper dome was the alcove. The bridge faced forward. The size then changed as the model was built, and Jefferies dealt with the bridge by adding that turbolift to the upper alcove dome from his 540 foot scheme. He refused to rotate it for aesthetic reasons, as well as his rationale for how the ship moved through some medium and needed streamlining as well as symmetry.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Actually I can't agree it is revisionist history, as whether or not the bridge faced forward was never covered in TOS.
> 
> It can't be revisionist history if there is no history to revise.
> 
> ...


Chuck, I love you and I want to have your baby.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Re: the bridge being intended for the teardrop section on a 540' ship, here's how it fits:






















(The images are 4 pixels per foot.)
(This is based on the Jefferies stage9 bridge drawing (standard scale) and the Alan Sinclair Enterprise (rescaled to 540' length). The dome shown is the production one rather than the pilot; the pilot dome would be larger in diameter where it contacts the teardrop.)

Question: if the dome was intended just to be the vaulted ceiling, why was it originally so tall on the model? (It was as tall as the teardrop section, which would have been one deck on the 540' ship.)

Indeed, on a 540' ship, the production dome scales out to 26' diameter. Since the pilot dome was probably about 20% bigger, that would make the dome 31 feet in diameter: just a little small for a full-size bridge.

Maybe the bridge-in-teardrop idea existed when the set construction drawings were made but had already been abandoned by the time the model construction drawings were completed. (This would mean that the bridge was rotated not at the time of the rescale to 947' but at the time it was decided to make the bubble atop the teardrop the bridge, before the model was built.)


Paul


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> Question: if the dome was intended just to be the vaulted ceiling, why was it originally so tall on the model?
> 
> SNIP
> 
> Maybe the bridge-in-teardrop idea existed when the set construction drawings were made but had already been abandoned by the time the model construction drawings were completed. (This would mean that the bridge was rotated not at the time of the rescale to 947' but at the time it was decided to make the bubble atop the teardrop the bridge, before the model was built.)


BINGO! You've got the right idea. The fact is, when the bridge was built the ship configuration was still in flux. A close look at the schematic in the turbo alcove (and the "hull pressure" readout) will show you what it looked like. Here's a little detail no one has noticed yet: It had neither a "teardrop" nor a turbo tube. What would later become the teardrop level was just a larger dome. But it was large enough to contain the bridge and turbo rotated forward. I believe it was this configuration in which the top most dome was just the overhead area of the set.

Before the large ship model was finished, it already represented a 947 foot vessel and the "tall dome" contained the whole bridge. The set had already been committed to film so MJ had to deal with that configuration (offset turbo). When he specified the exterior tube at the back of the dome he knew very well what the implication was. Those who claim he meant the bridge to face forward ask us to believe that he took pains to make sure the tube size and distance from center matched the set, but just _happened_ to space that the turbo wasn't behind the captain. _Not very likely._

For some reason he decided to bite the bullet and go with external symmetry over a forward facing bridge. Someone recently brought up why symmetry may have been so important a consideration: They planned to show both sides of the ship by reversing the film and decals. An asymmetrical turbolift would give the game away.

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Before the large ship model was finished, it already represented a 947 foot vessel and the "tall dome" contained the whole bridge.


Yes, but why was it tall? I was thinking it was a habitable level on the 540' concept. (1 deck in widest part of saucer, 1 deck above that in curved part of upper saucer, 1 deck in teardrop, then a final deck in the bridge dome) I might be remembering that display wrong. I can't seem to find a picture of it right now.

Long ago, in another thread, you said


> Fact: A graphic on one of the bridge panels in place since The Cage, and later pulled for a closeup in Day of the Dove, depicts a cross section with far fewer decks -- and with one deck per "hump" in the primary hull. Specifically, *the tear drop bulge under the bridge* is depicted as a single deck and the rim of the saucer is shown only one deck thick.


I guess you've since decided there's not teardrop shape under the bridge, just a deck in the curved upper saucer surface. I sure wish I could find a picture of that graphic. (I did find a broken link to it in another thread.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Ah! I just remembered all the bridge graphics are in the Ultimate Bridge thread. The two of the early cross section are very small, but it looks to me like the decks break down like this: a thin deck for the dome, a full deck for what would become the teardrop, a thin deck for the curved upper saucer surface, and full deck for the saucer rim...
I could believe that this graphic had the bridge in what would become the teardrop. (The innermost concentric circle shown in the corresponding top view would be the bridge "hump"; the dome hump is not shown on the top view.) (Of course, the top and side views' saucers aren't the same size anyway, though the engines are.)


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> Ah! I just remembered all the bridge graphics are in the Ultimate Bridge thread. The two of the early cross section are very small, but it looks to me like the decks break down like this: a thin deck for the dome, a full deck for what would become the teardrop, a thin deck for the curved upper saucer surface, and full deck for the saucer rim...
> I could believe that this graphic had the bridge in what would become the teardrop. (The innermost concentric circle shown in the corresponding top view would be the bridge "hump"; the dome hump is not shown on the top view.) (Of course, the top and side views' saucers aren't the same size anyway, though the engines are.)


Any chance we might get a link to those thread graphics?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Something doesn't quite make sense in my guesses of the development timeline:

Theory 1:
-ship sketch that becomes that bridge graphic is drawn, bridge is in what would become the teardrop
-bridge construction plans are drawn; bridge graphics are prepared (using the current best sketch of the ship)
-1/48 scale construction prints are drawn, advancing the look of the ship, making dome a full deck high, placing bridge in this deck (*BUT why not make the dome big enough to contain the bridge?* (It's only about 30' in diameter on a 540' ship.)), add elevator tube
-rescale to 947'; adjust elevator tube to position corresonding to bridge set

Theory 2:
-ship sketch that becomes that bridge graphic is drawn, bridge is in what would become the teardrop
-bridge construction plans are drawn; bridge graphics are prepared (using the current best sketch of the ship)
-1/48 scale construction prints are drawn, advancing the look of the ship, leaving the bridge in the teardrop (*BUT why make the bridge dome so tall?*)
-rescale to 947', move bridge to dome, add elevator tube

Theory 3:
-ship sketch that becomes that bridge graphic is drawn, bridge is in what would become the teardrop
-1/48 scale construction prints are drawn, advancing the look of the ship, leaving the bridge in the teardrop (*BUT why make the bridge dome so tall?*)
-bridge construction plans are drawn (*BUT why doesn't the vaulted ceiling in the set correspond to the height of the dome on the model?*)
-bridge graphics are prepared (using the current best sketch of the ship) (*BUT why don't the graphics depict the ship as in the construction prints?*)
-rescale to 947', move bridge to dome, add elevator tube

Theory 4:
-ship sketch that becomes that bridge graphic is drawn, bridge is in what would become the teardrop
-1/48 scale construction prints are drawn, advancing the look of the ship, making dome a full deck high, placing bridge in this deck
-bridge construction plans are drawn (*BUT why is it too big to fit in the bridge dome?*)
-bridge graphics are prepared (using the current best sketch of the ship) (*BUT why don't the graphics depict the ship as in the construction prints?*)
-rescale to 947'; add/adjust elevator tube to position corresonding to bridge set


My best guess is Theory 2. My only complaint with it is that the dome is tall enough to be its own deck, taller than the vaulted ceiling seen in the set (in the cap posted earlier in this thread from WNMHGB).

If the dome weren't tall enough to be a full deck on a 540' ship, I'd be happy with the theory as it stands: only when the ship was sized up to 947' would the bridge be moved up from the teardrop to the dome; at that time, the elevator tube would be added (on the centerline with MJ well aware of the rotation implication).
But... the dome definitely looks to be a full deck on a 540' ship: http://trek5.com/caps/tos/00_CAGE/pages/00-cage_015.htm.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Any chance we might get a link to those thread graphics?


Sure! They're right here in this forum.
Thread link: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=85998
Direct link to the bridge graphics: http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/ALLstations.jpg


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> Sure! They're right here in this forum.
> Thread link: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=85998
> Direct link to the bridge graphics: http://www.thomasmodels.com/exeter/ALLstations.jpg


Duh! Stupid me. :freak: 
I was thinking it was a TrekBBS thread for some strange reason(probably had something to do with working 14 hours today, not counting the commutes).

But my stupidity at least also resulted in that handy direct link you provided to thomas' graphics!

Thanks! :wave:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I wrote:


> But... the dome definitely looks to be a full deck on a 540' ship: http://trek5.com/caps/tos/00_CAGE/pages/00-cage_015.htm.


I can't quite swallow Theory 2 for this reason.
I must certainly reject Theories 1 and 4: MJ would not have simply made an interior that could not fit in the exterior. 

Tweaking theory 3 to mitigate the too-large dome issue:

Theory 5:
-ship sketch that becomes that bridge graphic is drawn, bridge is in what would become the teardrop
-1/48 scale construction prints are drawn, advancing the look of the ship, leaving the bridge in the teardrop; above the teardrop is a *small* dome (it's also possible that the "teardrop" is still round at this point)
-bridge construction plans are drawn
-bridge graphics are prepared (using the current best sketch of the ship) (*BUT why don't the graphics depict the ship as in the construction prints?*)
-rescale to 947', make larger dome, move bridge to it, add elevator tube (* but why make the larger dome so high?*)

I can dismiss the bridge graphic issue pretty easily: the sketch may have been handy. We've seen them use FJ blueprints as readouts of decks on the refit enterprise. We've even seen gerbil wheels on the E-D deck readout. The art department will stick whatever in these things knowing nobody's going to get to stare at them long enough to notice. (Or at least hoping that.) (Or not caring.) (Another good example: they used that crude old graphic prominently in Day of the Dove and didn't care how inaccurate it was.)

I still can't explain how tall the dome is with Theory 5, though. It's just not as painful to me when it's added at the 947' scale as a too-high-ceiling bridge rather than at 540' as a full-story ceiling vault. At 540', the reason to make it that large is to make it a full deck. At 947', it's already a full deck. (I don't think they meant it to be two full decks; however, that little black rectangle at the front could be suggestive of a viewscreen directly behind. It sure would be a small bridge to fit up there, though (and its turbolift would have to be contained entirely within the dome, too: the external tube doesn't go up that far, not to mention the 36 degree issue).)


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> I wrote:
> 
> I can't quite swallow Theory 2 for this reason.
> I must certainly reject Theories 1 and 4: MJ would not have simply made an interior that could not fit in the exterior.
> ...


Perhaps I'm missing something real obvious right now, I really should be in bed snoozing, but based on that old pic of the Cage ceiling on the previous page, and also based on your statement about the new bridge's ceiling being too high and the external tube not high enough...

based on all of that the bridge would seem like it MUST be sunken, at least a little(seperate and apart from the direction it faces).

Am I reading you wrong?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I wrote:


> Ah! I just remembered all the bridge graphics are in the Ultimate Bridge thread. The two of the early cross section are very small, but it looks to me like the decks break down like this: a thin deck for the dome, a full deck for what would become the teardrop, a thin deck for the curved upper saucer surface, and full deck for the saucer rim...
> I could believe that this graphic had the bridge in what would become the teardrop. (The innermost concentric circle shown in the corresponding top view would be the bridge "hump"; the dome hump is not shown on the top view.) (Of course, the top and side views' saucers aren't the same size anyway, though the engines are.)


The Star Trek Sketch Book (TOS) has a whole page devoted to the "hull pressure comp'ts" graphic. In that larger, clearer picture, it's quite clear that the dome is full is full deck height. (And it is indeed shown on the top view, too.) The coloration differs from Thomas' graphic, too; though that may be because the colors were modified for its use in Day of the Dove.

It looks to me like either a small bridge was intended to be in the dome in both the graphic and in the as-built model scaled at 540' (likely IF the bridge construction drawings were not made), the dome was intended to be a very large ceiling vault (seems unlikely to me; it's just too big), or there was supposed to be a small room above the bridge (likely only if the bridge set profile wasn't yet drawn).

I sure wish I knew which came first: the set drawings or the model drawings. If the model, the rescale happened before the set. If the set, the rescale moved the bridge from "teardrop" to dome (BUT why make the dome so tall? On a cramped 540' ship, would you really want to waste all that space making a two-deck-tall bridge?!)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Perhaps I'm missing something real obvious right now, I really should be in bed snoozing, but based on that old pic of the Cage ceiling on the previous page, and also based on your statement about the new bridge's ceiling being too high and the external tube not high enough...
> 
> based on all of that the bridge would seem like it MUST be sunken, at least a little(seperate and apart from the direction it faces).
> 
> Am I reading you wrong?


In a 947' Enterprise, the bridge fits at the *bottom* of the pilot dome just fine, with the turbolift positioned exactly in the external tube feature.
My comment about not fitting within the dome and the tube not being high enough was in the hypothetical scenario that the pilot dome on a 947' ship was *two* decks thick, stating that the bridge could not be in the *uppermost* deck of the dome (but rather must be in the lower half of the pilot dome).

I'm just trying to figure out why the pilot dome was so tall.

BTW, that picture of the bridge ceiling is not from The Cage but rather from Where No Man Has Gone Before, not that that makes any real difference.

Paul


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Ok...

Theory 6:
-ship sketch that becomes that bridge graphic is drawn, _smaller_ bridge is in the dome (consider an early bridge such as that shown on p2-3 in The Art of Star Trek)
-1/48 scale construction prints are drawn, advancing the look of the ship, _keeping the bridge in the dome_
-rescale to 947' (or so) occurs (construction prints are not redimensioned because the model is still to be 11' long (prints may already be in Datin's possession; the model could even already be under construction))
-bridge construction plans are drawn, based on a 947' (or so) ship
-bridge graphics are prepared _using a drawing that was convenient, even though known not to be accurate_
-scale is adjusted to exactly 947' (if not already); elevator tube is added/adjusted to the correct position to match the bridge set

This is based on the assumption that the model drawing came before the bridge set drawing. Can someone point to evidence that this assumption is right or wrong? (I'd prefer right, but I'd be happy with wrong, too; I just want to _know_) Please, please, please


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I was playing in Photoshop a bit to estimate the centerline and bridge offset angles based on The Cage opening shot. The rectangular side decal was very helpful in determining the centerline angle of the ship. The angle of the bridge offset is pretty obvious. Here is what I came up with:










Of course the special effect of inserting a live action shot into the model photography in TOS was primitve and the technique wasn't perfected until several years later in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I'm trying to come up with a realistic composite image of what the shot would have looked like in real life. The bridge scale is off so it should be zoomed up a bit and lowered in a southwest direction to match up to the elevator shaft on the outside. The center of the bridge should be right between the rear edge of the helm console. I'll see what I can do...


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> but based on that old pic of the Cage ceiling on the previous page


Actually the bridge ceiling shot is from Where No Man Has Gone Before


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> I was playing in Photoshop a bit to estimate the centerline and bridge offset angles based on The Cage opening shot.
> ...
> Of course the special effect of inserting a live action shot into the model photography in TOS was primitve


When you watch it, you'll see that the angle shifts around, that the turbolift doors open to outer space, etc. You can't conclude anything useful from this sequence except that the bridge is intended to be in the dome (and that "the special effect ... was primitive"  )


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

It occurs to me that in my timeline theories, when I say 1/48 model, I really mean 1/192 model, as that one was built first.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Actually the bridge ceiling shot is from Where No Man Has Gone Before


I think there may be an echo in here. 
(That's what I get for using fine print. )


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> When you watch it, you'll see that the angle shifts around, that the turbolift doors open to outer space, etc. You can't conclude anything useful from this sequence except that the bridge is intended to be in the dome (and that "the special effect ... was primitive"  )


Thats what I meant by saying primitive. I'm sure they just took stock bridge footage (filmed with no consideration of the pending model shot) from The Cage and stuck it in there. But the angle shown would match up with the elevator even when the saucer rotates over. The filming angle of the bridge segment inserted is about the same angle they mostly film the bridge set from. I think is it a nice coincidence to illustrate what this forum thread is discussing!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Considering the directions this discussion has taken and the frayed tempers at times perhaps it would help if anyone happened to know a reputable spirit medium who could get in touch with Matt Jeffries and perhaps help clear up this issue.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^^^ :lol:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

me said:


> Theory:
> -ship sketch that becomes that bridge graphic is drawn, _smaller_ bridge is in the dome (consider an early bridge such as that shown on p2-3 in The Art of Star Trek)
> -1/48 scale construction prints are drawn, advancing the look of the ship, _keeping the bridge in the dome_
> -rescale to 947' (or so) occurs (construction prints are not redimensioned because the model is still to be 11' long (prints may already be in Datin's possession; the model could even already be under construction))
> ...


I read through relevant Making of Star Trek portions and the McCullars article (Datin interview) in Star Trek Communicator, and recorded all dates I could find related to when the construction prints for the ship and the bridge set might have been finished.

Sources:
Poe The Making of Star Trek (primary sources GR, MJ, etc.)
McCullars Star Trek Communicator article (primary sources Datin etc.)

1964-08-25 Gene asking Kellam De Forest Research for SciFi ship artwork "several weeks" before Jefferies started scale drawings, which was after the study model and color artwork was approved by Gene (Poe)

1964-09-30 Harvey Lynn, in followup on revised Cage script, asks Gene how the set is going (Poe)

1964-10-14 "the mean time": after Jefferies started designing bridge and before its six-week construction has completed (Poe)

1964-11-01 "by the time November rolled around" "sets were ready to be constructed" (Poe)

1964-11-04 Datins begins construction of "3 footer" (drawings were delivered for bid before this time with enough margin for Datin to have prepared a bid, sent it to Anderson, and Desilu to approve it) (McCullars)

1964-11-15 "3 footer" is finished by this date and delivered to Gene at Rigel fortress on or shortly after this date (McCullars)

1964-12-08 11' model construction started approximately this date or earlier (but sometime in December) (McCullars)

1964-12-10 Gene tells Franz how to modify Rigel setup (implying that the Rigel fortress exists (and Gene's been there) but that it isn't yet quite ready for filming) (Poe)

1964-12-12 The Cage shooting begins (Poe)

1964-12-14 initial modifications to "3 footer" completed (used in Cage effects shots on or after this date) (McCullars)

1964-12-24 The Cage shooting ends (Poe) (Actually, Poe just says filming was 12 days. I assume they were consecutive days, but I could be wrong.)

1964-12-29 11' model delivered (on or about this date) (used in Cage effects shots on or after this date) (McCullars) (And evidence strongly suggests that rescale to 947' had already taken place by this time. (MGagen))



Implications:

The earliest possible date the ship prints could have been completed is several weeks after Aug. 25.

The latest possible date the ship prints could have been completed is sometime before Nov. 04 (with later revisions still possible).

The earliest possible date the bridge prints could have been completed is at least six weeks before Oct. 14.

The latest possible date the bridge prints could have been completed is Nov. 01 (with later revisions still possible).



Conjecture:

Scale ship drawings were completed around the middle of September. (Poe portrays this as being the biggest art issue for Gene. Thus, it would take precedence over the bridge design (as long as it's still feasible to get the bridge set completed in time for shooting, which it is). Indeed, it may have been the intention for Franz to do the bridge if Jefferies wasn't done with the ship in time. We know that ultimately Franz and Matt together planned how many people would be on the bridge and their functions, then Franz worked on other sets and left Matt to design the bridge.)

Scale bridge drawings were completed early October. (Matt would have jumped right into the bridge design as soon as the ship prints were done (also working on them in parallel some, I would think, but giving precedence to the ship until it was done).)

Bridge ergonomics dictated larger diameter than 540' as-designed ship's bridge dome will contain. (Poe quotes Jefferies describing how he worked out the size, pasted up full-size screens and such to check ergonimics, etc.)

Construction of bridge set began mid October, finishing first of December.

Model is not yet under construction when bridge design is final. Jefferies could now adjust the bridge dome feature to contain his larger bridge in the dome on the 540' ship, but he didn't. Why not? Two possibilities: 1) the ship had already been rescaled to 947' before construction began making the bridge fit issue moot, or 2) the bridge would be in the teardrop, and he didn't mind the very-high vaulted ceiling from the dome above it. I think it was the former.

Model is scaled to 947' either during or before construction (I suspect before); bridge is in the dome (I suspect it was always so, but if not, it is moved to the dome before construction is finished); turbolift tube is added/adjusted to the correct distance from dome center to match the bridge dimensions.



It would be very nice to see a better quality picture of Datin holding the 3-footer out for Gene on initial delivery. If the turbolift tube is present at the back of the dome, we can conclude that the rescale happened before that date (which is approximately Nov. 15). If it isn't and the dome is the normal pilot dome size, we can conclude that the bridge will not fit in the dome (suggested a teardrop location). (The bridge design would certainly be final by this time; bridge set construction took six weeks and filming *ended* Dec. 24 or shortly thereafter.)


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Guys check out this page:

http://www.strafe.com/bridge/index.html

This guy made a cool 3D computer model of the TOS bridge. Around page 5 there is a cool Quicktime VR panoramic that you can rotate and zoom in any direction! Way cool


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Wow, I go to bed early Friday night and look at what I miss!

Bravo, USS Columbia. You have covered the ground pretty thoroughly. I too worked out this timeline some while back. I really want to see the photo of the 3 footer delivered clearly enough to see the window patterns. That too would tell us if the rescale had happened at this point. 

A bit of evidence that makes me wonder about some of the timeline in TMOST: There is also a photo of Jeffrey Hunter holding the model in front of the Rigel fortress. He is in costume. If the model was delivered to the set on 11/15 per Datin, and Hunter is there in costume, then they must have been shooting already. But Poe reports that shooting didn't begin until 12/12. Someone's got it wrong apparently.

What I can say is that the preliminary drawing with the "baby bottle nipple" deflector has definite scale information on it that would scale a 4X model built from it at 1:48. The portions of this plan we've been able to see match the bridge graphic pretty closely. This, however, is not the construction plan. Can it be that this was the drawing that was current when the bridge set was built (500 odd feet long, a second symmetrical dome in place of the teardrop, "one deck per hump" and the topmost hump being only the overhead dome in the bridge set) but it was superceded by the construction drawing, by now a 947 foot ship, but drawn to the same basic size since the other drawing was used to budget the models? This new drawing would have featured the tall dome containing the already built bridge with the addition of the external turbotube.

This is my best guess at this point.

Good work everyone. This is some really constructive head-banging.

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, here's how the cross-section in my version measures up thus far...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

BTW, I think it's already been pretty well established that "The Making of Star Trek" isn't the most reliable reference work, like the part where it says the model is fourteen feet long (best estimates put it at 11' 2") with a primary hull ten feet in diameter (actually more like five feet).

In any case, all that timeline shows is that the design work on Star Trek bore a striking resemblence to that guy on the Ed Sullivan Show spinning plates on long sticks. A lot of things going on at once, with folks from offstage adding more plates at odd moments and occasionally one or two crashing to the floor.

And since I can't locate either of my copies of "The Making of Star Trek" at the moment, who is this Franz that you speak of? Sure as hell wasn't Franz Joseph, since he had nothing to do with these designs until the mid 70's.


----------



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

Steve Mavronis said:


> Actually the bridge ceiling shot is from Where No Man Has Gone Before


Oops. My stupid mistake. That's what I get for not back-clicking on the previous page and instead relying on memory after being up for 20 hours! :freak:


----------



## SeoulWind (Feb 25, 2004)

CA: Looking good. I've read conjecture that the ring around the planetary sensor dome was actually a phaser turret. I'm not certain where that originates but Thomas Sasser brought it up somewhere at one point. What do you think about that idea? Are you locked into the static phaser bank as depicted? The turret idea is interesting...

Mark Snyder
Seoul, Korea


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Thomas seems pretty certain on that point, and since he has better sources than any of us here, I'm not about to contradict him without some serious research of my own (which, in the case of the phasers, I ain't got).

In any case, we're digressing from the issue of the bridge; this particular line of discussion is best moved to my TrekBBS thread, Deck Plans III: The Search For The Bowling Alley".


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Does anyone have an accurate side view profile of the production version bridge dome hull (from the 11' model) including the actual size relationship and height of the external elevator shaft nub? Something with scale markings on it would be good - both of the model dimensions and "real life" feet. I don't need anything with anyones pre-conceived notions of where the bridge fits inside. I'd like to make a scratchbuilt model of the dome section with a bridge inside that you can see through the clear part. It would make a nice display like some other attempts I've seen.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> A bit of evidence that makes me wonder about some of the timeline in TMOST: There is also a photo of Jeffrey Hunter holding the model in front of the Rigel fortress. He is in costume. If the model was delivered to the set on 11/15 per Datin, and Hunter is there in costume, then they must have been shooting already. But Poe reports that shooting didn't begin until 12/12. Someone's got it wrong apparently.


Datin made modifications to the model and redilivered 12/14. Maybe he delivered at the Rigel fortress again, and that's when Hunter held it. Maybe that picture of Datin holding it out for Gene is actually from the redeliver rather than the initial. I don't recall if he mentioned delivering it originally at Rigel. I'll have to recheck the McCullars article.

Paul


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Captain April said:


> who is this Franz that you speak of?


Franz Bachelin, who replaced Pato Guzman.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Does anyone have an accurate side view profile of the production version bridge dome hull (from the 11' model) including the actual size relationship and height of the external elevator shaft nub? Something with scale markings on it would be good - both of the model dimensions and "real life" feet. I don't need anything with anyones pre-conceived notions of where the bridge fits inside. I'd like to make a scratchbuilt model of the dome section with a bridge inside that you can see through the clear part. It would make a nice display like some other attempts I've seen.


Sounds cool. I think the Polar Lights blueprints are your best bet for this detail, though I understand the shape of the dome isn't exactly right. I predict a followup from MGagen on this.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> Sounds cool. I think the Polar Lights blueprints are your best bet for this detail, though I understand the shape of the dome isn't exactly right. I predict a followup from MGagen on this.


The shape of the dome on the Polar Lights BP is definitely incorrect. It is depicted as a section of a sphere, which it is not. The shape much more like the latest Sinclair drawing.

As for size, the PL drawing agrees pretty well with my figures on this, but we have it at second hand (through Captain April) that Sinclair got something from Gary Kerr which showed his BP overlaid on Kerr's. Sinclair took measurements from this which correspond to his current Revision C plans. At present I prefer Sinclair's plans over mine on this point. At least until I do further checking. If the Kerr connection is as advertised it is a happy day for all concerned, as he is the only person I know to have made an accurate survey of the model made direct measurements.
Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> What I can say is that the preliminary drawing with the "baby bottle nipple" deflector has definite scale information on it that would scale a 4X model built from it at 1:48. The portions of this plan we've been able to see match the bridge graphic pretty closely. This, however, is not the construction plan.


I think it is indeed the construction plan. In any case, the plan used for bidding is the plan Datin built from, according to him (via McCullars):


> I presented Anderson's with the bid to build the three-footer. They forwarded the cost to the Desilu peole, and they approved it. I had a set of drawings furnished to me to make the bid -- it was the same set used to build the three-footer (e.g., top view, plan view, side eleveation, and section views).


The article has two b&w photos printed of Jefferies drawings. I believe both of them are from the construction plans. One shows the obsolete "nipple" deflector (marked "do not build this nose") while the other shows the accurate deflector detail that was built.

Datin also says that part of the drawing (that he cut out to use as a decal guide) is missing. Unfortunately, it's just the part we'd most want to see: it's the top view of the primary hull. 

Edit: of course, a side view of the primary hull would work for us, too.

Paul


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> MGagen said:
> 
> 
> > A bit of evidence that makes me wonder about some of the timeline in TMOST: There is also a photo of Jeffrey Hunter holding the model in front of the Rigel fortress. He is in costume. If the model was delivered to the set on 11/15 per Datin, and Hunter is there in costume, then they must have been shooting already. But Poe reports that shooting didn't begin until 12/12. Someone's got it wrong apparently.
> ...


I rechecked the article. Datin never says that he delivered at the Rigel fortress for either delivery. The caption on the delivery-at-Rigel photo says it's when Gene got his first look at the model, but Datin isn't quoted as saying that. It's entirely possible that the picture is of the redelivery. In this case, BOTH Poe and Datin are right. They'd be two days into shooting (per Poe) on Dec. 14 when the modifications were completed (according to Datin).

Maybe McCullars (The IDIC Page) can recall specifically whether he showed the photo to Datin and Datin specifically said the photo was of the initial delivery or if it was just assumed. (The photo is identified as being from the "Richard Arnold Colllection.")


Paul


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> The shape of the dome on the Polar Lights BP is definitely incorrect. It is depicted as a section of a sphere, which it is not. The shape much more like the latest Sinclair drawing.


When I saw the miniature with my own eyes, I didn't take particular note of the shape of the dome, darn it! (I did look at the color; but I didn't have the Stoneyhurst and Concrete paint cards with me to compare, darn it!)

Anyway, the pilot dome was a plexiglass hemisphere according to Datin. If it's true that it was just cut in two and put back on for the production version, then it's still a spherical section. Here are the Datin quotations (from the McCullars article in Star Trek Communicator):
3-footer:


> I was able to purchase a Plexiglas dome, a ready-made item for modelers, for the bridge.


11-footer:


> The teardrop-shaped bridge section ws made from a solid piece of wood with its center hollowed out for installation of the hemispherical-shaped Plexiglas (bridge) dome (the same for the underside dome).


Looking at the delivery shot of the 11' model, the dome does indeed look like a hemisphere. The photo's not extremely clear, but it looks like he just masked off the upper clear "skylight" portion and painted the rest, leaving the skylight clear.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

uss_columbia said:


> Franz Bachelin, who replaced Pato Guzman.


Okay, I recognize that name now.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

uss_columbia said:


> When I saw the miniature with my own eyes, I didn't take particular note of the shape of the dome, darn it! (I did look at the color; but I didn't have the Stoneyhurst and Concrete paint cards with me to compare, darn it!)
> 
> Anyway, the pilot dome was a plexiglass hemisphere according to Datin. If it's true that it was just cut in two and put back on for the production version, then it's still a spherical section. Here are the Datin quotations (from the McCullars article in Star Trek Communicator):
> 3-footer:
> ...


So, we're talking, what, a 8" diameter hemisphere? I would think a ready-made off-the-shelf item would be in an even measurement.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^^ They're available in practically every size you can think of. I was browsing a catalog of them online months ago (we were trying to find the ones used for the nacelle fronts). I can't remember the site, though.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Excellent job, USS Columbia, you're MY kind of researcher.



uss_columbia said:


> I think it is indeed the construction plan. In any case, the plan used for bidding is the plan Datin built from, according to him (via McCullars)


Actually, I have it personally from Datin himself that the baby bottle nose drawing is not the construction drawing. The quote from the article would seem to point to the construction drawing being finalized before the quote was made. Obviously, Jefferies had given him preliminary drawings as well. Perhaps for rough estimates or maybe for advice on buildabilty.



> I rechecked the article. Datin never says that he delivered at the Rigel fortress for either delivery. The caption on the delivery-at-Rigel photo says it's when Gene got his first look at the model, but Datin isn't quoted as saying that. It's entirely possible that the picture is of the redelivery. In this case, BOTH Poe and Datin are right. They'd be two days into shooting (per Poe) on Dec. 14 when the modifications were completed (according to Datin).


Good point. However the caption says "first look." Now captions are often notoriously inaccurate. Often they're not even written by the author of the article. So I guess we should have a reasonable skepticism about it. I'll contact McCullars and ask him about it. I'll report back what I hear.



> When I saw the miniature with my own eyes, I didn't take particular note of the shape of the dome, darn it! (I did look at the color; but I didn't have the Stoneyhurst and Concrete paint cards with me to compare, darn it!)


Well, whatever the dome was, it isn't a section of a sphere now. If it is really the same pilot dome cut down (as we've been led to believe) then the original wasn't likely a sphere either. At least, it isn't a thin plastic sphere like the ones you can buy from Plastruct (the current incarnation of the same supplier used for the domes on the original models). There wouldn't be enough thickness for it to be sanded into the shape we see. I submit that the dome Datin is talking about on the "eleven footer" is the actual clear sensor dome on top -- especially since he mentions one on the bottom, too. Now maybe the "three footer" had a hemispherical dome. That would not surprise me.

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Actually, I have it personally from Datin himself that the baby bottle nose drawing is not the construction drawing. The quote from the article would seem to point to the construction drawing being finalized before the quote was made. Obviously, Jefferies had given him preliminary drawings as well. Perhaps for rough estimates or maybe for advice on buildabilty.


Well! I didn't know you were able to get hold of him personally. I remember you posting that you were trying to some time back. There are certainly some questions I'd like to ask him. Any chance of more correspondence with him? (I'd hop in my car this moment and drive to Reno, if he'd let me take a peek at these drawings! (wishful thinking))

Could Datin have meant that the baby bottle portion of the drawing was not for construction and there was another part (perhaps on another sheet) that superceded it with the correct detail? (This is my theory.) Or was he clear that he had some preliminary drawings separate from the construction drawings?




> Good point. However the caption says "first look." Now captions are often notoriously inaccurate. Often they're not even written by the author of the article. So I guess we should have a reasonable skepticism about it. I'll contact McCullars and ask him about it. I'll report back what I hear.


I was about to email him, but no sense both of us doing it. I'll wait to hear what you learn. BTW, Part 2 of the article featured corrections to some captions in Part 1; as you say, captions are notoriously inaccurate. Still, it seems Datin did point out some wrong captions and didn't bother complaining about "first look."




> Well, whatever the dome was, it isn't a section of a sphere now. If it is really the same pilot dome cut down (as we've been led to believe) then the original wasn't likely a sphere either. At least, it isn't a thin plastic sphere like the ones you can buy from Plastruct (the current incarnation of the same supplier used for the domes on the original models). There wouldn't be enough thickness for it to be sanded into the shape we see. I submit that the dome Datin is talking about on the "eleven footer" is the actual clear sensor dome on top -- especially since he mentions one on the bottom, too. Now maybe the "three footer" had a hemispherical dome. That would not surprise me.


I thought of this, too. He did say the 11-footer had a hemisphere, too, though. (Top and bottom, apparently.) Neither clear dome is a full hemisphere, of course; but they might have been originally, or he might have meant that a section was cut from a hemisphere rather than using the full hemisphere.

Are you sure a typical Plexiglas dome from the day wouldn't be thick enough to sand down the top to the shape we've seen? (I agree that the production dome is not a spherical section. (Not on the PL model, 11-footer photos, Kerr prints, or anything.) My theory was going to be that the conversion from pilot to production involved cutting off about a third from the bottom and sanding down and reshaping the top. If there's not enough material to do so, that shoots down my theory.

BTW, I've never seen any plastic domes other than spherical sections (hemispheres and full spheres, actually) in catalogs. Have you?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Theory 6:
> -ship sketch that becomes that bridge graphic is drawn, _smaller_ bridge is in the dome (consider an early bridge such as that shown on p2-3 in The Art of Star Trek)
> -1/48 scale construction prints are drawn, advancing the look of the ship, _keeping the bridge in the dome_
> -rescale to 947' (or so) occurs (construction prints are not redimensioned because the model is still to be 11' long (prints may already be in Datin's possession; the model could even already be under construction))
> ...


Here's the bridge concept drawing I was referring to (for those without ready access to The Art of Star Trek):









While it's very different from the bridge we know, notice that the cross section is somewhat similar. Also notice that it's in a generally hemispherical dome. (If you can tell from the image distorted by curvature of the page.  )


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

uss_columbia said:


> Any chance of more correspondence with him?


Yes, but it is best not to make a pest of oneself... 



> Could Datin have meant that the baby bottle portion of the drawing was not for construction and there was another part (perhaps on another sheet) that superceded it with the correct detail?


He was quite clear that it is a separate drawing from the one used to construct the models.



> Are you sure a typical Plexiglas dome from the day wouldn't be thick enough to sand down the top to the shape we've seen?


I doubt it. Think of how heavy it would be if it were that thick. I think it was probably lathe shaped wood -- but this is just a guess. If anyone knows, please speak up.

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^^ So I guess Datin was talking about only the little clear upper dome "cap" and lower dome. When you decide to pester him again, make sure to ask about it, please.

(And he specifically said "hemisphere" WRT the 11' dome. He doesn't say the whole thing was used, though.)


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

I have the book but it's not handy. Are you sure that's an TOS drawing and not from one of the movies or something? 

If it is from then, then putting the viewscreen right on the interior of the dome, make that little rectangle seem like some kind of direct viewing sensor thingy...or not.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Richard Compton said:


> I have the book but it's not handy. Are you sure that's an TOS drawing and not from one of the movies or something?
> 
> If it is from then, then putting the viewscreen right on the interior of the dome, make that little rectangle seem like some kind of direct viewing sensor thingy...or not.



I believe it is billed as an early sketch by Pato Guzman. As far as I know, he wasn't involved again after he left the pilot episode. 

The screen in his picture does seem to match the one seen on the dome. It is even "widescreen" in aspect. However, there are two problems with that theory IIRC:

1) The model wasn't constructed until long after this initial design was abandonned. The bridge set was already completed in its final form by then.

2) The dome with the "viewscreen" marking isn't from The Cage. It wasn't added until WNMHGB.


Mark


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I heard back from William McCullars about the photo of Richard Datin giving Roddenberry his "first look" at the approval model.

As we guessed, the captions were not written by McCullars. He provided captions for each photo, but they were not used. Instead, as is often the case in magazines, an editor wrote new ones. The "first look" line was the least of the errors.

The photo is a studio shot supplied by Richard Datin. McCullars thought the 12/14/64 date for the photo "seems plausible," although he doesn't know for sure. 

I also inquired about whether it would be possible to get a better scan of the photo. He said it was a very poor quality print and "what you see in the magazine is as good as it gets."

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^^ Well, since we're pretty sure the pic is of the as-modified model, it's not as interesting anyway. What would be supremely interesting would be a peek at Datin's construction prints and preliminary drawings! (One can wish. )


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

MGagen said:


> I doubt it. Think of how heavy it would be if it were that thick. I think it was probably lathe shaped wood -- but this is just a guess. If anyone knows, please speak up.
> Mark


I assume we're talking about the bridge dome with the turbotube at the back, rather than the translucent dome atop it?

If so, I can tell you that Ed Miarecki and Ken Isbell showed me photographs of the disassembled 11 foot model that were taken during the 1992 work. The dome was wood -- in fact, it had cracked down the center and had to be removed, repaired and reinstalled; the photos left no doubt as to what it was made of. If you look at post-1992 photos of the saucer top you can see that the dome is the only part of the saucer top that has been refurbished (per Smithsonian requirements to leave the saucer top -- the only part of the model that hadn't been painted over since the model had come into the museum's posession -- untouched).

Thanks to everyone for the kind words about "Exeter".


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Thanks for the info!


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Lots of fascinating stuff on this thread (to which I've devoted a couple of hours tonight catching up on) regarding when and why the ship's size was changed, how this effects bridge placement, etc. -- but despite my respect for the work & debate involved, I have to re-raise my own particular bee's-bonnet issue, to wit: what about the hangar deck???

Which is to say: the second season saw introduction of a facility (said hangar) that simply will not fit within a 947-foot vessel. Over in the "Bob Villa shuttlecraft" thread, and on Phil Broad's Modeler's Vault site, response has been to shrink the hangar to fit...which seems ironic given the down-to-the-foot attention given here to bridge placement.

I'd make a thread of this save for the well-nigh universal rejection, some months back, of "my" postulated "King Kong Enterprise" (i.e., a ship enlarged to contain said hangar). I've no specs to cite on this, thanks to a summer devoted to other matters, so will close with the following question:

Given that by the time of "Galileo Seven," the ship's size was firmly established, why, pray tell, was the hangar deck miniature built at a "size" incapable of existing? (rather than as recently redrafted by Phil). Or is the impossibly large size a reflection of the enlarged shuttle, and nothing more?

I'll note in passing that the ubiquitous single-occupancy cabins (as versus Franz Joseph's apocryphal two-person staterooms) are only possible in a larger-than-947-foot ship...and too, that a vessel so enlarged makes child's play of bridge placement...

David Winfrey


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

trekkist said:


> I have to re-raise my own particular bee's-bonnet issue, to wit: what about the hangar deck???


The more bees in our bonnets the better, I always say... :roll:



> ...the second season saw introduction of a facility (said hangar) that simply will not fit within a 947-foot vessel.


I don't think that's necessarily true. All we have to go on are MJ's section blueprint (which shows a hangar that extends no further than the aft of the pylons) and scenes of the hangar from inside (which are of the forced perspective miniature set that was apparently "opened up" on the forward end to admit the camera and lighting). We are in essence getting a wide angle lens view from inside the hangar. As you know, a wide angle lens can make even a small room look enormous.

Mark


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

I've built a CG model of the hangar interior that will fit inside the 947 foot model and that matches the hangar as seen on tv -- in terms of scale, anyway. The only real issue is that those "pockets" on either side jut out into space, and it's occurred to me since building the thing that I could probably resolve this by making a different assumption about the lenses used.

I consulted FJoesph's blueprints and the drawings in "Making Of Star Trek", but I didn't build from either -- I used DVD clips of the miniature set from the series, and matched my rendered images to that, moving things around and rescaling as necessary. I'll try to post a link to an image later -- one might quibble with some of the details (such as the floor markings on my version) but I think one can see that the scale works.


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)




----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

I'm confused. Do the images (CGI and TOS) look alike? Sure. But the size issue involves the shuttlecraft's having been enlarged to contain the depicted interior. Taking the thus-established width overall (see the Bob Villa shuttle thread) and calculating the thus-derived hangar deck width, how wide is it (the hangar)? Wider than a 947-ft ship can contain, according to my calculations -- and Phil Broad's too, given his "downsizing" of the hangar.

I'm dubious that perspective distortion or the effects of a forced-perspective miniature would make any significant difference in the relationship of these 2 relative measurements. 

David Winfrey


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

Well, my contribution was intended to address the statement that the "second season saw the introduction of a facility" that simply would not fit inside the ship as MJ scaled it. 

In fact, what was actually depicted will fit inside such a ship with only minor possible issues. It's surprising, in fact, how well it all fits together. The real problem, as you note, is with the discrepancy between the depicted shuttle interior and the full-sized shuttle, not between the shuttle exterior and the hangar deck, or the hangar deck and the Enterprise exterior.

Here are the scale references for the images above as they pertain to this discussion:

The shuttlebay itself is built into the interior of a pretty accurate CG model of the Enterprise at 947 feet long. Problems? Possibly wall thickness and the aforementioned wall alcove issue. Given that there's thus far no good measurement of how deep those alcoves actually were and that my shuttlebay mesh may be (as I said) a little wide, I don't think there's much problem. 

It was trickier to derive reasonable vertical measurements, but they work out to both make sense and look right. Is it cramped in there, in places? Yep.

My interior is not forced perspective, BTW, though I understand that the original minature was.

The shuttlecraft depicted in the CGI rendering is built to the measurements determined by Phil Broad, by reference to his drawings.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Excellent work, Dennis (as always). I'm a big fan of what you're doing for Exeter. The pros and cons of model photography aside, your CGI exteriors come within spittin' distance of capturing the original look.

Your Hangar images demonstrate just what I was trying to say. The focal length of the lens can make the interior look just as big as we've seen onscreen. You're right, it is surprising how well everything fits together. 

The size discrepancy of the Shuttle is another matter. The issue as I see it is this: The shuttle design called for there to be much less head room inside. Matt Jefferies' rendering in TMOST shows an interior view with a figure hunched over walking between the seats. This is consistent with the exterior of the mockup.

I believe the following inconsistencies in the interior set all point to a very specific conclusion: The front angle is too steep; the seats are unnaturally low; there is no line of sight out the front viewports; the ceiling is too high; if scaled to fit vertically, the interior becomes too narrow; and the door windows (if they went all the way through) would be too high.

All of these suggest to me that the set was intended to have the low ceiling of the MJ drawing, but after it was designed (and maybe built) it was decided to raise the roof. This was accomplished mainly by leaving the bottom "half" as is and stretching the top half from the side seam up. This altered the forward angle, raised the windows too high, and left the seats with no reason to be so uncomfortably low.

As a result we are left with a descision to make: either enlarge the shuttle to make it contain the interior (which FourMadMen has done an admirable job on) or accept that the interior we saw was too tall. If we choose the first course, we may still be able to fit the Shuttle in the Hangar MJ designed, but it is going to be a little tighter than he meant it to be. If we choose the second, everything fits just fine as is.

That's my two cents on it. :roll: 



trekkist said:


> But the size issue involves the shuttlecraft's having been enlarged to contain the depicted interior. Taking the thus-established width overall (see the Bob Villa shuttle thread) and calculating the thus-derived hangar deck width, how wide is it (the hangar)? Wider than a 947-ft ship can contain, according to my calculations -- and Phil Broad's too, given his "downsizing" of the hangar.


I think this ignores the fact that what we saw onscreen was a forced perspective miniature set. As such, _there was no scale_ for us to compare against the miniature shuttle. The scale varies from front to back on the set. How big the shuttle is to the Hangar varies with how far in the shuttle is. The upshot is, we only have how it "looks" onscreen to go by. I have maintained, and Dennis has demonstrated, that the look has a lot to do with the focal length of the camera (virtual or otherwise).

You won't find many places where I advocate this kind of position, but in _this_ case, how it looks is what counts.

Mark


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Dennis Bailey said:


> The shuttlecraft depicted in the CGI rendering is built to the measurements determined by Phil Broad, by reference to his drawings.


Is Phil's size the upscaled to fit the interior version or the stated 24' length (or something else)?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

What we saw on-screen was a wide-angle lens shot of a forced perspective interior. Your render is a wide-angle lens shot of a non-forced perspective model, right Dennis? 

I don't know much about photography. How do wide-angle lens and forced-perspective interact? Is it anything like having an even wider angle lens?
(I guess the added width/height impression comes from the wide angle lens; the extra length impression comes from the forced-perspective. Do they tend to even each other out at all?)


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Forced perspective is an aid for photographing models where scale and maintaining depth-of-field are important. The more depth-of-field you require, the smaller the aperture and greater amount of light you need in order to obtain proper exposure for creating the illusion that what you are seeing on screen is full-scale and not a miniature.

Star Trek was shot on Eastman 5254 color negative stock, which has an ASA of 100 under tungsten light - a rather slow-speed stock (by today's standards, anyway. At the time, it was considered to be a rather high-speed stock). In order for both the front and rear of the hangar deck miniature to be in focus required the use of a wider lens and an f/stop (aperture) of f/11 or greater (the hangar deck model was about ten feet deep). At such small f/stops, an enormous amount of light is needed in order to achieve the exposure required to maintain proper depth-of-field - about 1600 footcandles or more. An average-lit room in a house comes in at about 40-60 footcandles, for example. 

One advantage with the hangar deck miniature, is that the distance between the camera and the model stayed the same. With the Enterprise, it was a whole different story. The camera would truck toward and away from the model, requiring even more light to maintain the depth-of-field. Those shots needed so much light that the stages were burning hot to be on during takes. Ever wonder why in some photographs of the large Enterprise on the miniature stage, the technician is shown not wearing a shirt? That's why.

Sometimes, the amount of light required to shoot the models was not practical, so the models were lit with somewhat less light and the film was then pushed (forced-processed, or left in the developer for longer-than-required times) to increase the apparent sensitivity to light. The side effects of this technique is an increase in film grain and contrast, which was glaringly apparent in many of the master blue elements. When comped with the star and planet backgrounds, the grain buildup would sometimes come close to pushing the limits of acceptability.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Very interesting. Why wouldn't they user more sensitive film? This would have coarser grain, of course (no pun intended ), but they were getting grain issues with the "force-processing" anyway. Wouldn't a 400 film or higher be a net win?
(I guess another option would be to increase exposure time and proportionally decrease the motion speed. For example, double the exposure time, halve the camera or model motion speed. If you did this and shot at 12 fps but played back at 24 fps, you'd get back to the original apparent motion speed. Is this just a crazy idea?) 

Minor nit: when you say "at such small f/stops, an enormous amount of light is needed in order to maintain proper depth-of-field," though, I think you mean that in order to get a suitable depth-of-field, such a small aperture was used; the small aperture then requires lots of light in order to adequately expose the film. (While I don't know much about photography, one thing I do know is that the smaller the aperture, the larger the depth of focus; simultaneously, the smaller the aperture, the smaller percentage of reflected light that makes it through the aperture to the film: thus, the more light required. The way you said it seems to confuse cause and effect.) Or am I confused?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

At the time, there were no faster color film stocks than 5254. If you wanted to be shooting at 400, you would have been limited to using a black & white stock. Something that RCA would have frowned upon, being the owner of the "all color network", NBC. Actually, there were some elements of the Enterprise shot in black & white, then colorized later in optical with filters, but those were rare.

BTW, you were correct about my statement. In reading it again it did sound somewhat confusing. I went back and edited it so that it would (hopefully) make more sense.

You'll have to forgive me. I'm getting old and it is hard enough to remember this stuff, let alone explain it!


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

uss_columbia said:


> Is Phil's size the upscaled to fit the interior version or the stated 24' length (or something else)?


Unless I'm very much mistaken, Phil's drawings are accurate to the full-sized stage prop. What we're concerned with, in this case, is recreating the elements as they were designed and appeared in TOS; it looks to me as if Jefferies did design the hangar deck to fit within the 947-foot ship.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Ace: I edited in another idea for reducing the needed light then noticed you'd already replied. Here's my other idea:
Another option would be to increase exposure time and proportionally decrease the motion speed. For example, double the exposure time, halve the camera or model motion speed. If you did this and shot at 12 fps but played back at 24 fps, you'd get back to the original apparent motion speed.
Is this just a crazy idea?

Dennis: sorry, I'm not sure what the size of the full-size model is. Is it 24' long? (matching the dialog)?


----------



## ken072359 (Aug 1, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> At the time, there were no faster color film stocks than 5254. If you wanted to be shooting at 400, you would have been limited to using a black & white stock. Something that RCA would have frowned upon, being the owner of the "all color network", NBC. Actually, there were some elements of the Enterprise shot in black & white, then colorized later in optical with filters, but those were rare.


There is an obvious improvement in the quality of the ship's effects footage during the run of the series, for example the aft view above the starboard nacelle in "The Corbomite Manuever" as compared to the exact same view in the third season. The same can be said for some bridge viewscreen closeups between the first and third seasons. The first season stock footage is dark and very grainy, while the later season's are brighter and clearer. So my question is, were the optical effects reshot with better film stock? Or could the "better looking" shots be the colorized B+W ones?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

There were two effect houses that shot the Enterprise model. Anderson and Film Effects. The Anderson model passes were mostly done "live" at speed (24 fps). This was for the first two pilots, and the first half-dozen or so series shows. The lighting for these shots is what I was speaking of. Later on, when the model was moved to Dunn's place, it was shot differently, at much slower frame rates, and needed much less light in order to properly expose the relatively slow-speed film and still maintain proper depth-of-field. 

The model was on either a Mitchell or Worrall head (I'm pretty sure it was a Mitchell at Dunn's) and operated by a fellow draped underneath a blue canvas. The camera was on a crane mounted on a dolly. The dolly was moved along by a worm-gear which allowed for much longer exposures with a slower frame rate and shutter speed, while maintaining the "smoothness" of a real-time shot. The result was a cleaner element because more normal processing could be utilized. 

Elements were duplicated and exchanged between the various effects houses (Anderson, Film Effects, Westheimer, Vanderveer(Photo Effects), and Cinema Research) and were used and reused throughout the series' run. That's why you saw the pilot versions of the Enterprise flyby's all through to the end. It was simple economics. It was always cheaper to reuse existing elements than to create new ones, unless the script demanded (and the budget allowed) otherwise.

Time, as well as money, was the worst enemy of the production schedule. There was NEVER enough time to give the shots the care that they deserved. It often got down to where it was getting close to airdate (were talking a few days away) and many shots were still not finished. So, the film lab that did the printing (CFI) would print whatever reels had completed effects shots and hold the remainder until the finished comps could be cut in, resulting in some of the episodes not being delivered to the network until just prior to airtime. There was often a (not so funny) joke about them showing wet prints. The lab did not like doing this, but it was often necessary because they were up against the wall and there was no choice. Many comps were first-timers and there was no time go back and clean up the blue spill on the model - which resulted in "crawling" mattes that created holes or otherwise caused parts of the ship to disappear. The time to redo them to attempt to make them better simply wasn't there. 

At the time, and with the film chains in use at the time, a lot of stuff slipped by the viewers. Plus, the show was only shown in 35mm on the network. The syndicated stuff was all 16mm reductions. It's only been since the advent of LaserDisc and DVD that the original 35mm negs or interpositives have been retransferred with modern digital equipment for all to see the mistakes now that would have never been noticed by viewers of several decades ago. 

It would be interesting to see what those original elements would look like recomposited with modern digital gear. I bet that modern viewers would be astonished at the quality that would result if that could be so. The younger folks need to realize that even though the opticals of the original series may look "cheesy" by today's standards, they were state-of-the-art motion picture effects techniques realized on a television budget, using only optical and photochemical methods to produce the resulting effects. There were no computers, motion-controlled cameras, digital scanners and Ultimattes back then. I still think that some of the original stuff holds up pretty darn well, considering.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

I remain confused as to what Dennis' VERY attractive CGI recreation of the hangar deck supposedly establishes in terms of fitting said deck into a 947 ft ship. To my eye, the 2 images (CGI and TOS still) look all but identical. In what sense does the CGI reflect a corrected-to-interior-size shuttle's fitting within the deck? 

As to MGagen's

The scale varies from front to back on the set. How big the shuttle is to the Hangar varies with how far in the shuttle is. The scale varies from front to back on the set. 

Granted -- but what does NOT vary is the relationship between the shuttle's overall width, and that of the hangar itself. Which is to say that a (visually) horizontal line drawn through the centerline of the hangar's circular turntable will meet the base of the interior walls, thus defining an overall interior width which can be then compared to that of the shuttlecraft itself (or that of the turntable, if one wishes to take into account the (possible? -- or is this established?) forced-perspective aspects of the shuttlecraft miniature). 

Thus, the hangar's interior width along the turntable centerline can be derived from the presumed width of the shuttlecraft (or turntable). A 24-ft shuttle will yield a hangar width of 24 times [whatever the width ratio is]. Enlarge the shuttle, and the latter figure will increase also. 

At least, that's this self-taught draughtsman's (rather reluctant) conclusion. Am I missing something in terms of the rules of perspective? 

I daresay there's some computer graphics program which could, if given the various dimensions of the forced-perspective hangar deck miniature, "unforce" the hangar into its "real-world" dimensions. Lacking such, I've been attempting to brute-force an answer by actually building the thing around a Mircromachines shuttlecraft. Thus far, I remain unsatisfied with the accuracy of my results...but I am sure of one thing: forced perspective notwithstanding, 947 overall feet won't hold what we saw.

I want to emphasize that I myself do NOT like this conclusion. But I remain unconvinced of any other. And being as how the "shrunk to fit" hangar as rendered by Phil Broad gives me the hives (in relative-size appearance; no criticism meant of Phil's excellant CGI work), I'm driven to think the ship bigger than we all grew up believing.

Thus, I repeat: will someone please tell me if I'm in error? Can an enlarged shuttle really appear as depicted in TOS' hangar scenes? Or do the latter in fact inmply a "King Kong Enterprise"? Heretical minds want to know...

David Winfrey


----------



## Dennis Bailey (Jun 16, 2004)

trekkist said:


> I remain confused as to what Dennis' VERY attractive CGI recreation of the hangar deck supposedly establishes in terms of fitting said deck into a 947 ft ship. To my eye, the 2 images (CGI and TOS still) look all but identical. In what sense does the CGI reflect a corrected-to-interior-size shuttle's fitting within the deck?



It does nothing about fitting a "corrected" to interior-size shuttle into the deck. It simply establishes that it's possible to fit the hangar deck as it was designed and appeared on "Star Trek" into the 947-foot scaled ship as it appeared on "Star Trek". The two pieces pretty clearly were designed to the same scale and with that intent, if not perfectly realized.

The only problems I encountered making the hangar deck used on "Star Trek" fit the scaled-to-Jefferies-established-947-foot-ship used on "Star Trek" were that a) my model is probably a few feet wider than it should be (you can see that near the top of the image) and b) the hangar doors used on the miniature interior model and the hangar doors designed into the ship model are not shaped the same -- the hangar doors on the ship model are not properly-shaped hemispheres and wouldn't actually slide in the way that they're shown to from the inside.

Now, on the other matter -- rescaling the shuttle exterior to match the set is a _choice_, not a "correction". One could just as correctly lower the ceiling and "correct" the interior to fit into the shuttle mock-up -- both were full-sized set pieces with which the performers interacted and provide measurable scale reference for, and one can argue that the shuttle exterior scale is consistent with the apparent scale of the shuttle miniature, the hangar deck miniature, and the ship miniature and that all this consistency should weigh against the anomalous interior set. Neither is rotating the bridge within the saucer dome a correction -- it's a choice based on individual aesthetic sensibility rather than function or reference to evidence.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Dennis Bailey said:


> ...rescaling the shuttle exterior to match the set is a _choice_, not a "correction". One could just as correctly lower the ceiling and "correct" the interior to fit into the shuttle mock-up -- both were full-sized set pieces with which the performers interacted and provide measurable scale reference for, and one can argue that the shuttle exterior scale is consistent with the apparent scale of the shuttle miniature, the hangar deck miniature, and the ship miniature and that all this consistency should weigh against the anomalous interior set. Neither is rotating the bridge within the saucer dome a correction -- it's a choice based on individual aesthetic sensibility rather than function or reference to evidence.


Well stated, Dennis. This is exactly right.

I am personally not opposed to enlarging the shuttlecraft to contain the interior in order to arrive at a "real world" solution to this chesnut. But that enlarged shuttle cannot be justly used to critique whether MJ did his job in designing the hangar deck. I believe it is pretty clear (if not definitely established) that the raised interior ceiling in the interior is a departure from original intent.



trekkist said:


> The scale varies from front to back on the set.
> 
> Granted -- but what does NOT vary is the relationship between the shuttle's overall width, and that of the hangar itself. Which is to say that a (visually) horizontal line drawn through the centerline of the hangar's circular turntable will meet the base of the interior walls, thus defining an overall interior width which can be then compared to that of the shuttlecraft itself (or that of the turntable, if one wishes to take into account the (possible? -- or is this established?) forced-perspective aspects of the shuttlecraft miniature).


Well the horizontal scale of the set would vary from front to back just like the vertical scale. What I think you're advocating is using the "point of contact" where the shuttle actually touches the set (the turntable) as a "latitude" for making a measurment. In effect, you're saying that behind the turntable the set is too small for the shuttle, and in front of the turntable the set is too large.

I believe this is a sustainable position. If we had the set available for measurement we might be able to test whether this makes sense. Unfortunately, we only have the photos, which incorporate the optical illusion of forced perspective. And as Dennis demonstrated, a hangar deck built to into a 947 foot ship in the area reserved for it in the MJ section view can reproduce almost exactly what we saw onscreen.



> I daresay there's some computer graphics program which could, if given the various dimensions of the forced-perspective hangar deck miniature, "unforce" the hangar into its "real-world" dimensions.


What this doesn't take into account is that Jefferies didn't have anything so sophisticated to help him "force" it in the first place. He was winging it to get the visual effect he was after. And as you can see above, he pretty well nailed it.



> ...will someone please tell me if I'm in error? Can an enlarged shuttle really appear as depicted in TOS' hangar scenes? Or do the latter in fact inmply a "King Kong Enterprise"? Heretical minds want to know...


If the original scale shuttle can fit in the set as shown above, then the worst case is you'd have to enlarge the ship by the same percentage the shuttle has been enlarged. I don't have the actual figures to hand, but for the sake of argument let's say the set piece is 26 feet long and the harmonized "real" shuttle is 31 feet -- you'd be talking about an enlargment of about 119%. Applying that to the ship as a whole you'd end up with a LOA of about 1,127 feet. This is assuming that you still couldn't squeeze the 31 foot shuttle into the original sized hangar. I believe that is still an open question.

Mark


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well, I just happen to own a 31' shuttlecraft. Are there accepted dimensions for the shuttlebay (either "actual" measurements or failing that as it proportionally relates to the shuttlecraft). I'm sure that if there were definitive answers to those questions then this part of the discussion would not be required. However, I ask anyway not expecting definites but someones (Marks?) best "guess". I know I've got plans to build a shuttlebay myself but perhaps moreso I'd like to get a feel for how a 31' shuttle fits in a shuttlebay and how that fits in a 947' Enterprise (if that's possible without too much compromise).


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Well, I just happen to own a 31' shuttlecraft. Are there accepted dimensions for the shuttlebay (either "actual" measurements or failing that as it proportionally relates to the shuttlecraft). I'm sure that if there were definitive answers to those questions then this part of the discussion would not be required. However, I ask anyway not expecting definites but someones (Marks?) best "guess". I know I've got plans to build a shuttlebay myself but perhaps moreso I'd like to get a feel for how a 31' shuttle fits in a shuttlebay and how that fits in a 947' Enterprise (if that's possible without too much compromise).


After watching the progress of this 31' shuttlecraft and how the exterior and interior discrepencies have been rationalized I must say that I am now revising my opinion on how big the TOS _E_ likely is. The original 947' number practically carved in stone doesn't work much for me the more I see how things should fit together and particularly in light of such an out-of-whack apparent scale of the 11' filming miniature. To that end it just makes so much more sense that the filming miniature is more likely a more credible 1/96 scale and thus the TOS _E_ is a more believeable 1080' in length. My final rationalization for this is the simple fact that the enshrined 947' figure has never been stated on-screen.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

*Computer rendered hangar*

Hi All,

Check out these great hangar computer models from Phil Broad:

Phil Broad Renderings

I believe he went with a larger sized shuttlecraft so you can see it gets a bit tight in there...


----------



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

trekkist said:


> I remain confused as to what Dennis' VERY attractive CGI recreation of the hangar deck supposedly establishes in terms of fitting said deck into a 947 ft ship. To my eye, the 2 images (CGI and TOS still) look all but identical. In what sense does the CGI reflect a corrected-to-interior-size shuttle's fitting within the deck?
> 
> As to MGagen's
> 
> ...


I remember reading somewhere that you wanted/needed a set of McMasters Klingon blueprints, Dave.

Still need/want a set?

If so email me at the address tied to my name here...


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Well, I just happen to own a 31' shuttlecraft. Are there accepted dimensions for the shuttlebay (either "actual" measurements or failing that as it proportionally relates to the shuttlecraft). I'm sure that if there were definitive answers to those questions then this part of the discussion would not be required. However, I ask anyway not expecting definites but someones (Marks?) best "guess". I know I've got plans to build a shuttlebay myself but perhaps moreso I'd like to get a feel for how a 31' shuttle fits in a shuttlebay and how that fits in a 947' Enterprise (if that's possible without too much compromise).


Someone's been busy in the fortress!!! :tongue:

Hope you batten down the hatches and get away from that category 4!

Don't trust those Class F shuttlecraft shields to protect you and the family!!!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Yes, my Hangar Deck renders feature an enlarged Shuttlecraft. Not sure the length I had it scaled to but I believe it was about 31 feet.

Just like to stir the pot a little more by pointing out that, although the overall length of 947 feet was never stated in dialogue in the show, the three-view presentation drawing which was reproduced in TMOST did appear on screen and therefore the dimension annotations did as well. Not sure which episode it was just off-hand but they were displayed on the desk viewer screen in the Briefing Room.

He he...

Phil Broad


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Woohoo! Another very old thread springs back to life! 

Edit: I'm glad I browsed back through this old thread. I'd completely forgotten about the insightful comment about the need for symmetry in the model that Trek Ace made in post #156!
I've also had several good laughs from some of the comments.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Quick! Get the Zombie Killin' Shotgun! Dead Threads are comin' back to life!


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> Yes, my Hangar Deck renders feature an enlarged Shuttlecraft. Not sure the length I had it scaled to but I believe it was about 31 feet.
> 
> Just like to stir the pot a little more by pointing out that, although the overall length of 947 feet was never stated in dialogue in the show, the three-view presentation drawing which was reproduced in TMOST did appear on screen and therefore the dimension annotations did as well. Not sure which episode it was just off-hand but they were displayed on the desk viewer screen in the Briefing Room.
> 
> ...


Yep. But that can always be changed by the good people bringing us the CBS TOS Remastering!

Imagine, a 1894 foot TOS E!!! :tongue: 

(Which would have the effect of making the PL Refit and MR TOS E's 1/700th scale, and leave plenty of room for a bowling alley!  )


----------



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

Griffworks said:


> Quick! Get the Zombie Killin' Shotgun! Dead Threads are comin' back to life!


 


*Mooooooo hahahahahahahahahaha!!! :devil: *


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

See the 1/537 Excelsior thread -- the Enterprise B may have been about 2000'.

Edit: Hey! Chuck said 2000' in his earlier post when I posted this reply!


----------



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

I thought two thousand feet might tick some people off who wouldn't want their $1200+ 1:350th scale TOS E to become an oddball scale. So I trimmed it back to 1894 feet, (2 X 947 feet) which makes it still a standard ship scale - 1:700th.

'Aint I considerate?


----------



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

So to summarize our findings: is it true that the McMaster's blueprints and the one portion of the Stage 9 blueprints are then the only available blues for the TOS E bridge(other then the FJ and TMOST stuff)?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I have a set of bridge prints at home in a box that I think may not be the McMasters (I seem to recall they aren't as accurate as his). I'll try to locate them in my very messy basement.

If anyone comes across the original construction prints, PLEASE pass them my way, too! Thanks much!

Paul


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I thought two thousand feet might tick some people off who wouldn't want their $1200+ 1:350th scale TOS E to become an oddball scale. So I trimmed it back to 1894 feet, (2 X 947 feet) which makes it still a standard ship scale - 1:700th.
> 
> 'Aint I considerate?


You are too kind!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The portion of the stage plan showing the Bridge is not all that accurate, in my estimation. The turbolift alcove is drawn wrong (probably based on an early version), and the central command area is all wrong. This makes me at least suspicious of the other details as well.

Alledgedly the folks at New Voyages got their hands on at least one sheet of Bridge plans but no one is confirming that. I do know that the plans were taken from the studio by fans, probably in the early 1970s so they are "out there", somewhere. The studio no longer has them, that is for sure.

Phil


----------



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

Thanks once again Phil!

It's been said that the McMasters' Blueprints are also wrong about the turbolift/alcove area.

Are there any correct blueprints of this area anywhere?

What is the problem with the McMasters' blueprints?

Anyone want to give correctly blueprinting that area in the different elevations a try?

Perhaps worked up as a Psuedo-Addendum to the McMaster's prints?

Other then the alcove(and the issue of the addition of the TAS - style doorway to exit stairs aside) are there any other issues that should be corrected in the McMasters blueprints?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I have begun a plan of the Bridge but it is a HUGE project. It appears deceptively simple because of the repeating geometry but establishing all the little subtle details is very difficult, just as in the case of the ship exterior. So my version won't be published anytime soon.

The McMaster plans are very close, generally I would say that he is within plus or minus 2 inches on most dimensions. However he does have some geometry wrong, turbolift area and central command areas in particular.

I doubt that any of the errors in his drawings would result in a "visibly" wrong model. We are talking about pretty subtle variations here in most cases. In fact, I built a 3D model from his plans and was quite happy with the results. Probably most of the models seen on the Internet are based on his drawings too, so if you see nothing wrong with them, then you should be happy with any results you achieve from using them, be it virtual modeling or real modeling.


----------



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

Might you consider doing the Turbolift and Central Command sections first then?


Did you do his bridge with the TAS style access to the emergency stairways?

Still have her saved, I hope?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Well...

No.

Yes, but unreadable in the newer versions of "Microstation".


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Yes, my Hangar Deck renders feature an enlarged Shuttlecraft. Not sure the length I had it scaled to but I believe it was about 31 feet.


Your hangar deck also fits into an enlarged, 1080' LOA, Enterprise, right? So, if we scale the ship back down to 947', your renders would feature the equivalent of a 27' shuttlecraft. Close enough to get a good feel for how things fit.
Or are your renders based on a 947' ship?


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> Well...
> 
> No.
> 
> Yes, but unreadable in the newer versions of "Microstation".


No way to convert it into another format, and then reconvert it?

How about into something you can open and work with another program you might have?

Couldn't you at least save them as stl files?


----------



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

Dennis Bailey said:


> Unless I'm very much mistaken, Phil's drawings are accurate to the full-sized stage prop. What we're concerned with, in this case, is recreating the elements as they were designed and appeared in TOS; it looks to me as if Jefferies did design the hangar deck to fit within the 947-foot ship.


Size of the shuttlecraft aside, the cavernous view caused by the forced perspective hanger deck can't be seen to be accurate. Not just in depth, the depth of the hanger deck could be rationalized. But even worse was the problem with the apparent height if one were to try and literally translate the apparent height from the floor of the hanger deck to the interior roof. The clamshell doors just aren't that high.

For a more realistic view of the shuttlebay that could still fit within a 947 foot ship(though extend forward of the engine pylons) checkout the CBS remastered shuttlebay.

Notice most closely the difference in height from interior floor to interior roof:

www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-035e/pop.html

www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-035c/pop.html

http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-044d/pop.html

http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-044/pop.html

http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/bst/tos-enhanced/tos-044a/pop.html


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I believe, from all my own work with that shuttlebay, that the CBS version is still too big. I think it is a compromise -- made big enough to seem spacious because the real size of the thing would strike people as just too damn small. 

Also, the original mini set was not a forced perspective design. It was distorted to allow easy camera access, from what I've read. So, it's not trying to show anything like a realistic view -- its "realism" has been sacrificed to an apparent need to make the set small enough to store, but still needing to fit a camera up inside to get a shot.

The best indication of how big this thing should be is on *Jefferies' Phase 2* cross section. This is the guy that designed the shuttlebay showing you what he intends it to look like. It also takes account of the height that observation gallery needs to be to mesh with the deck heights. And that hangar bay is a rather cozy space.

I can say that with a 30 foot shuttlecraft in there, its downright tight. No problem if you see the thing being landed with tractor beams and precise guidance, but certainly not a shuttlebay for TFF-style arresting hook-landings.


----------



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

With all due respect to MJ, his phase 2 design never saw the light of day. I think you are limiting your thought and hindering your ability to perhaps make the landing bay more believable based on a design that was aborted and never finished.

I think the CBS shuttlebay deck is very close to the size of the Refit shuttlebay deck.
Based on other 3D renders like Phil Broad's, I don't think there's is too high. So if it is too big in your mind I think it's more likely to be too deep then too tall(maybe I'm wrong, I'm guess-timating).

If a decent cross-section of the Refit could be obtained, it could then be retrofited to a TOS style.

There could be two rear elevators, just like the refit.

And an accordian rear bay doors and fly through.

If one were to retrofit a Refit style cross-section of the landing-bay, lower hanger deck and storage areas(last two haven't been shown yet) to the TOS E I'm willing to bet it would very closely match the Refit's in size.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

While the Phase II never made it into canon, one would be foolish to ignore the wealth of clues into the designer's intent it provides!


----------



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

Except where it conflicts with what was actually filmed.

Jefferies drew designs of the TOS shuttlecraft in which it was teardrop shaped.

Jefferies drew designs of the TOS shuttlecraft in which you would have to stoop over to move within and there was virtually no rear room to the craft.

Should we ignore what finally made it on the screen because he drew two other intermediate designs?

Those shuttlecraft designs never made it. What is foolish about totally ignoring them?


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> While the Phase II never made it into canon, one would be foolish to ignore the wealth of clues into the designer's intent it provides!


Before anyone jumps to conclusions, let me say I think it's okay to look to the MOST and even the Phase II drawings *where they do not conflict* with what was made it to the final versions.

But I think, to reverse the argument, it is indeed foolish to put designs that never survived the final version above what we see onscreen.

It's like a husband or wife catching their spouse in bed with someone else and then trying to convince them they didn't really see what they saw.

Don't believe your eyes, believe what Jefferies intended... 

Doesn't add up.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I believe it was disillusionist who demonstrated that you can indeed get the look we've seen with a shuttle bay that fits in the 947' ship (using wide-angle lens). 947' was indeed seen onscreen (at least as near as we can tell -- could be plus or minus up to five feet) in Day of the Dove.
If you insist on upscaling the shuttle from the 24' that is stated onscreen (er on-speaker , and you reject that wide-angle lens can make small space look larger, you'd have to scale up the ship to something like 1500' to get what you think you've seen.


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> I believe it was disillusionist who demonstrated that you can indeed get the look we've seen with a shuttle bay that fits in the 947' ship (using wide-angle lens). 947' was indeed seen onscreen (at least as near as we can tell -- could be plus or minus up to five feet) in Day of the Dove.
> If you insist on upscaling the shuttle from the 24' that is stated onscreen (er on-speaker , and you reject that wide-angle lens can make small space look larger, you'd have to scale up the ship to something like 1500' to get what you think you've seen.


No one has shown that possible. It is literally impossible.

Even the biggest fans of Jefferies and Datin(who built the model) would deny that.

It's not *just* a matter of wide angle distortion.

If you study the original shuttlebay picks at the point where the miniature is crossing the doors you could easily stack four shuttlecraft on top of one another before reaching the top of clamshell doors.


Also there is another issue with the shuttlebay.

Like the K-7, Richard Datin who built the filming model was given a very rough sketch of shuttlebay, the main detail of the shuttlebay miniature - as Aridas has noted - was how big he had to make the rear end opening had to be for the camera to fit.

Datin built a beautiful set from a rough sketch that Jefferies drew. Like the K-7 Datin has said there were no scaled blueprints given to him, only a sketch.

So I doubt there was even a blueprint made until after Datin delivered the miniature. If there was it wasn't given to the guy making the model. Which seems unlikely at best.

All these analysis are being made(probably even the line drawings that were finally provided to the writers and eventually TMOST) of the egg, not the chicken.

Some are treating the original TOS shuttlebay as if it is the Shroud of Turin, whose every detail imports some special insight that is deeply perfect and unquestionable.

The reality was that it was a set piece built for a weekly TV show on a ridiculously tight budget(according to Datin they told him to nix any motorized elevator due to lack of money) and done in a matter of days from a rough *get-it-close-enough-for-government-work-style* sketch.

I.E. I don't believe we can infer what exact dimensions Jefferies intended at all because he didn't draw precise construction blueprints for Datin to use.

This obviously happened elsewhere in the series, such as the interior set of the Galileo being extremely larger then the exterior could hold.

The Phase II drawings were preliminary sketches for a ship that was never built or filmed.

Let's not forget that Jefferies was a designer(admittedly far and away the 
best) *for* Star Trek.

Let's not forget that the show was named Star Trek.

As good as Jefferies was, the show was not named *The Matt Jefferies Hour: The showcase of futuristic stuff designed to prove how great a designer Matt **Jefferies is!*

I love the guys' work too. He was a genius and no one working on later series/movies has ever matched his sense of design and style as far as I'm concerned.

But it seems ridiculous to me that so much is infered by some about designs that never saw the light of day.

Why it should be ridiculous to compare the TOS E to the Refit E without referencing a preliminary design for a ship never built is beyond me.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Except where it conflicts with what was actually filmed.
> Jefferies drew designs of the TOS shuttlecraft in which you would have to stoop over to move within and there was virtually no rear room to the craft.


Yes, and we have indeed seen that the shuttlecraft exterior, AS SEEN ONSCREEN, would require one to stoop while inside the craft. We have also seen an interior where you do not. The interior simply does not fit into the exterior. Both have been seen ONSCREEN. You seem to prefer to accept the interior and choose to pretend the exterior is larger and can accomodate it. It is equally valid to choose the opposite. It is simply impossible to accept that both of them -- AS SEEN ONSCREEN -- are correct; the interior shuttlecraft set simply does not fit in the shuttlecraft exterior.

I'm not talking about the miniature of the shuttle or of the bay here, I'm talking about the full-size shuttle exterior. We've seen it with live actors standing next to it and can tell it's not tall enough to accomodate the interiors that we've also seen.

Nobody is ignoring anything ON SCREEN. Nobody, however, can make the conflicting on-screen evidence be consistent because they really do contradict each other. Thus, any personal resolution you may accept about a "real" shuttlecraft cannot be fully supported by on-screen evidence.

If you like to think of the ship as much larger than 947', that is most certainly your right, and I wouldn't presume to fault you for that.

However, I most certainly do fault you for telling Aridas or anyone else that they are "limiting [their] thoughts" by considering MJ's phase II designs as they pertain to his view of the original ship. Aridas has stated many times that he's interested in the designer's intent. Looking to the designer's follow-up work is indeed an excellent way to gain clues to the designer's intend for the original work. It is not limiting but rather enabling to have this information. It would indeed be most foolish for anyone that cares about the designer's intent to ignore the designer's own followup work on the subject!

It would also be foolish to ignore other evidence, on-screen or otherwise that pertains to the issue at hand (i.e., the designer's intent). Can you point to any on-screen evidence that the ship, in its final form in the original series, was intended by the designer to be larger than 947'? I'd be very interested to consider it, if you can.

The spaciousness of the depicted shuttle bay relative to the shuttle inside it is not very useful, as the size of the shuttle is not known (it is *known* to be unkown, due to conflicting evidence), and it has been demonstrated that the shuttle bay can look spacious even when scaled to fit in a 947' ship when shot with the appropriate lens.

Furthermore, the shuttle bay is a relatively minor set (by that I mean seen rarely), as opposed to the bridge. The bridge forms a nearly perfect fit in a 947' ship but does not fit in a slightly upscaled (e.g., 1080') ship, due to the turbolift. It would fit fine in a 1500' ship, of course. (Or you could place it in the teardrop or practically anywhere else inside an upscaled or downscaled ship, but it only fits in the "bridge dome" of a 947' ship.)

If you prefer a much larger ship, why not look for on-screen or even off-screen evidence to support it? Have you looked at whether the window placement makes better sense at a much larger size, for example?


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> Yes, and we have indeed seen that the shuttlecraft exterior, AS SEEN ONSCREEN, would require one to stoop while inside the craft. We have also seen an interior where you do not. The interior simply does not fit into the exterior. Both have been seen ONSCREEN. You seem to prefer to accept the interior and choose to pretend the exterior is larger and can accomodate it. It is equally valid to choose the opposite. It is simply impossible to accept that both of them -- AS SEEN ONSCREEN -- are correct; the interior shuttlecraft set simply does not fit in the shuttlecraft exterior.
> 
> I'm not talking about the miniature of the shuttle or of the bay here, I'm talking about the full-size shuttle exterior. We've seen it with live actors standing next to it and can tell it's not tall enough to accomodate the interiors that we've also seen.
> 
> ...


You are mixing past discussions with what we are talking about now.

I am not talking about CBS's shuttlebay fitting in a larger then 947 foot TOS E.

If one were to use a layout similar to that seen in the Refit then the CBS shuttlebay could fit in a 947 foot Enterprise, even if we were to upscale the shuttle to 30 feet long. 

Aridas' apparent reason that CBS's shuttlebay is too deep is because it is bigger then what was seen in the Phase II drawing - if I understand him correctly.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> No one has shown that possible. It is literally impossible.


That you've seen! I recall seeing a convincing render of a 3d model placed inside the 947' ship using a realistic wide-angle lens. It was either in this forum or on trekbbs, I don't recall which. I'll see if I can track it down when I get a chance.



> Some are treating the original TOS shuttlebay as if it is the Shroud of Turin, whose every detail imports some special insight that is deeply perfect and unquestionable.
> 
> The reality was that it was a set piece built for a weekly TV show on a ridiculously tight budget(according to Datin they told him to nix any motorized elevator due to lack of money) and done in a matter of days from a rough *get-it-close-enough-for-government-work-style* sketch.
> 
> ...


I wholeheartedly agree. Sorry if I incorrectly lumped you in with the shroud fanatics.

I take the shuttle bay for what it is: a neat looking set that seems bigger than practical -- and doesn't tell us much about the true intended size of the Enterprise.




> The Phase II drawings were preliminary sketches for a ship that was never built or filmed.


And it provides a wealth of insight into the original ship designer's view of the ship he designed -- because it represents a follow-on of his original work. It doesn't show us that he original intended the ship to be 947' (it's very strongly suggested that he originally intended the ship to be 540') but it does support the notion that in its final form it was intended to be 947'.



> But it seems ridiculous to me that so much is infered by some about designs that never saw the light of day.


Perhaps you can explain why, and I might understand where you're coming from. The analyses of these drawings and the relation to the original Enterprise by Aridas and MGagen seem quite convincing to me. I don't see any flaws in their logic. Please do enlighten me, if you can.



> Why it should be ridiculous to compare the TOS E to the Refit E without referencing a preliminary design for a ship never built is beyond me.


I never said anything about the refit.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^^^ by that I mean the "refit" that appeared in Star Trek: the Motion Picture.
(The Phase II Enterprise was a proposed refit that would have actually made sense as a true refit of the original.)


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> And it provides a wealth of insight into the original ship designer's view of the ship he designed -- because it represents a follow-on of his original work. It doesn't show us that he original intended the ship to be 947' (it's very strongly suggested that he originally intended the ship to be 540') but it does support the notion that in its final form it was intended to be 947'.


Let's assume that the Phase II Enterprise existed exactly as drawn.

Would the shuttlebay look closer to this:

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=42&pos=22

or more likely closer to this?

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/EnterpriseRenderings/EntHangerDeck04.jpg


----------



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

Here's a rough sketch of about how much space I think the CBS shuttlebay would take. Remember that the second deck is speculative, I drew this before even remembering about the Refit's lower decks and cargo area so it may go back a hair too far on the second deck:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=39202


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> ^^^ by that I mean the "refit" that appeared in Star Trek: the Motion Picture.
> (The Phase II Enterprise was a proposed refit that would have actually made sense as a true refit of the original.)


That's the whole crux of the differing viewpoints, if I understand them correctly.

I feel it's perfectly okay to compare CBS's longer but lower remastered shuttlebay to the Refit's shuttlebay.

Aridas thinks the CBS shuttlebay is too long because it conflicts with the Phase II drawings.

I don't mean to state Aridas' argument for him, but I believe that to be his position.


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> I wholeheartedly agree. Sorry if I incorrectly lumped you in with the shroud fanatics.
> 
> I take the shuttle bay for what it is: a neat looking set that seems bigger than practical -- and doesn't tell us much about the true intended size of the Enterprise.


Let me also say I didn't mean to imply that Aridas was fanatical about the original sets either.

I recently praised the work that CBS did on remastering the Shuttlebay here in another thread and got seriously bashed, not to mention about a dozen really nasty emails.

It was those types I was venting about, not at all having to do with Aridas.

I don't understand Aridas' precluding a longer deck(thinking the CBS deck was too long) because of the Phase II drawings, but neither did I intend to imply he was fanatical about the original set pieces.



Also, on the Trek remastering issue, I was initially really disappointed with their efforts. Last weekend I saw their remastered Immunity Syndrome.

I was greatly impressed with their TOS E set against a totally dark background in HD. 

It was gorgeous!

As long as they go back and reinsert the improved models(which I believe they have said they would be doing before releasing the HD dvds) the HD dvd's will be well worth the money.

Imagine *screengrabs* at five times the resolution of what is available now!


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> You are mixing past discussions with what we are talking about now.


Perhaps so. Sorry.



> If one were to use a layout similar to that seen in the Refit then the CBS shuttlebay could fit in a 947 foot Enterprise, even if we were to upscale the shuttle to 30 feet long.
> 
> Aridas' apparent reason that CBS's shuttlebay is too deep is because it is bigger then what was seen in the Phase II drawing - if I understand him correctly.


I've only seen the CBS shuttlebay in the pictures posted online (I haven't seen the episode), and I haven't looked very closely. I'm frankly not very interested in it from a canonical point of view. I wouldn't mind seeing the remastered shows to see how nice the new effects look, but they are not canon to me. They are revisionist. I think the revisions are minor and harmless from what I've seen, but revisions nonetheless.

If the revisions remove inconsistencies and don't introduce any others AND do so in a way that seems consistent with what the original designers and producers would have done back in the 60s given the chance, then I may like them. If not, I may appreciate the art but won't find them persuasive in my view of the canon. (Not that I'm a canon fanatic anyway.)

I think Aridas may object to an elongation of the shuttle bay because it would interfere with where Main Engineering is likely to be located. I'll let him speak for himself. However, I can think of two reasons to think that extending it forward via retconning is inconsistent with the original intent:

1. MJ's cutaway drawing from the period defines (approximately) how far forward it was. Not on-screen, granted, but contemporary with what was on-screen.

2. MJ's Phase II clarifies the dimensions of the shuttle bay in a way consistent with the original cutaway and in the form of direct followup work on the original ship. It thus reinforces his intent for and understanding of the original Enterprise in the series production configuration.

Now, does MJ have the right to dictate how big the shuttlebay is and where engineering is? Not absolutely, but he certainly was in a more credible position to do so than CBS artists 40 years after the fact!


Paul


----------



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

Engineering could still be forward of the shuttlebay.
No problem there.

They only problem would be if one were to try and consider the tubes at the back of main engineering as extending up to and all the way through the pylons.

However the problem with that is that those tubes behind the main engineering screen aren't at the right angle to do that anyway.

So the angle of that tubing, if it is what it has been assumed by some to be, has to at least change once, criss-crossing them still won't change the angle.

So if the angle has to be changed I see no reason why they have to be considered to be directly under the pylons.


----------



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

Hmmm...

Which leads me to another thought.

In the refit engineering was way way forward of the pylons, as evidenced by the forced perspective power tubes that went waaaaaaaaaay back before rising up.

Those smaller tubes seen behind the Engineering screen in TOS could have been tied into two larger aftward-bound sets that did the exact same thing.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> That's the whole crux of the differing viewpoints, if I understand them correctly.
> ...
> Aridas thinks the CBS shuttlebay is too long because it conflicts with the Phase II drawings.


I think Arias thinks it's too long because it conflicts with his own understanding of the length it was intended to have in the original. Aridas and MGagen (and others, I'm sure) have used the Phase II to gain an enhanced understanding of the original. I don't believe anyone is objecting to new effects of the original series because they are inconsistent with a proposed but unimplemented refit. Rather, they object to them because they consider them inconsistent with the intended configuration of the original.

It's well established that the TMP "refit" we've seen provides no insight into the original, being a completely new ship. Probert is very clear that it was not a refit, the dialog that ultimately appeared on screen notwithstanding.

The refit turned most of the engineering section into the cargo section. Fine. But this was a late 70s concept. The mid-to-late 60s concept is as recorded in TMOST and enlightened through the Phase II (precisely because the Phase II was a direct follow-on refit of the original, not a new design).


Having taken new looks at the CBS shuttle bay, I can say I think it is a substantial improvement. It will certainly fit better than what we saw on-screen before. It does look a little too tall to me, but I haven't done careful analysis to say for sure. It certainly looks too long in consideration of the previously cited cross sections.

Let's say it does extend forward beyond the pylons. Does that leave adequate space for any substantial engineering equipment at the point where the pylons connect? It would seem there should be some significant power transfer conduits or somesuch leading between the pylons and Main Engineering. (Some relation the the "glowie pipes" behind the mesh, perhaps.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Engineering could still be forward of the shuttlebay.
> No problem there.


That's not sufficient. The Phase II drawings call out a very specific location for engineering and very specifically define the extent of the shuttle bay. Considering that the pylons have moved between the orignal and Phase II, it's all the more likely that the location of engineering (and thus the extent of the shuttle bay) MJ called out on the drawings was his understanding of these locations on the original enterprise! (With the pylons so much further forward on the Phase II refit, he could have moved engineering way forward (and extended the shuttle bay) and still had engineering beneath the pylons. He didn't. Why? Because he wanted to keep the same shuttle bay extent as on the original Enterprise, I think.


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> I think Arias thinks it's too long because it conflicts with his own understanding of the length it was intended to have in the original. Aridas and MGagen (and others, I'm sure) have used the Phase II to gain an enhanced understanding of the original. I don't believe anyone is objecting to new effects of the original series because they are inconsistent with a proposed but unimplemented refit. Rather, they object to them because they consider them inconsistent with the intended configuration of the original.
> 
> It's well established that the TMP "refit" we've seen provides no insight into the original, being a completely new ship.


Sorry I disagree.

Again, it would make more sense to look at a key plot twist and multiple scenes in the movies, then to listen to a comment that may have been made by a member of the production staff.

Some have argued that it makes no sense that they would have removed and added onto the outer hull of the ship.

It's quite clear that that's* exactly* what was done. Because it seems dumb to some is no reason, once again, to believe our own eyes.

Every character including Montgomery Scott called her a Refit. 

That makes her a Refit in my estimation.

There are countless ways to explain the changes, the most obvious being some sort of Industrial Replicator technology. 

It makes perfect sense that converting existing mass to energy and then back to a new configuration is less wastfull then replacing or destroying existing matter (even in the Star Trek universe they don't ever argue that matter can really be destroyed anyway).

The strongest evidence that this was not a completely new ship is the characters' reactions to it's destruction in the third movie.

I don't believe that McCoy and Kirk where so teary eyed in Star Trek III over loosing a brand new ship that had just been handed over to them.

They were clearly upset over loosing the ship they had all served together on for years and years.

Not some brand new ship they had just gotten the keys to - Probert's statements notwithstanding.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Yes, yes, the dialog says it's a refit, so it's a refit.
What I mean is that when Probert designed the thing, he was instructed to do so as a new ship -- it was to have a new registry number and all, I've read. Roddenberry decided later to make it a refit again.
When Probert redesigned it, he was not constrained by any requirements to make it a refit of the original. It was designed as a wholly-new ship. Thus, the redesign does not provide any evidence of original arrangements whatsoever.
However, if you consider it as in-universe fact that it's a refit, you are of course free to use the final state of the "refit" as clues to the original internal arrangement all you like. It's just that that ignores the designers' intent.

(Aridas had a good quote on trekbbs a while back about the artists' intent being more important than what appeared on the screen in the rush to produce "just a TV show." I'll have to see if I can find it.)


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> Yes, yes, the dialog says it's a refit, so it's a refit.


No.

It is not that simple.

Had it been just an offhand term perhaps I could see the point of those who would argue otherwise.

The term Refit was not an offhand term.

Hearing that the original Refit was going to be decomissioned and scrapped was a major plot twist - albeit at the end - of the second movie.

It was an obvious blow to all the characters.

They weren't reacting to loosing a brand new Enterprise.

They were reacting to loosing *THE* Enterprise.

There is no getting around that.

That major point was further reinforced when they were forced to destroy the Enterprise.

They were clearly destroying *THE* Enterprise, as evidenced by their reactions.

It's one of the most moving scenes to fans of TOS in all of the movies.

It ranks up there with the first Flyby and Kirk's death.

Does anybody really think that they were mourning a brand new ship?
If so, I think those people simply haven't thought about that scene very much.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^^^ No, I was serious when I said it's a refit in-universe. It just wasn't designed that way.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> (Aridas had a good quote on trekbbs a while back about the artists' intent being more important than what appeared on the screen in the rush to produce "just a TV show." I'll have to see if I can find it.)


Found it:


> ... if we are going to start going only by what's onscreen, all sorts of bad things happen.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> ^^^ No, I was serious when I said it's a refit in-universe. It just wasn't designed that way.


I feel as dumb as the GEICO cave man doing Nightline trying to answer the sociologist's statement...

_*"What???" *_


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> Found it:


 
All I have to say about all of that is that the artists work for the show.

Not vice-versa.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

And the show "works" for the studio with the purpose of selling advertizing, merchandise, etc. What's your point? To fans, it's more than that. If you don't care about artist's intent, fine. Some do.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I feel as dumb as the GEICO cave man doing Nightline trying to answer the sociologist's statement...
> 
> _*"What???" *_


I'm too confused by your confusion to have any idea how I could clarify. (I've never seen these GEICO caveman commercials. I've heard they're cute.)

I'll try anyway 

History
1. producers said to do a refit
2. MJ designed one (Phase II)
3. producers said never mind refit, update and make it a new ship
4. Probert did so (TMP model and related interiors); no part of the new ship came directly from the old -- it looks similar, but all interior and exterior components and features have changed to some degree
5. producers decided to make it a refit after all
6. The fact that it's a refit became canon
7. Fans rationalized how it could be a refit while having no original parts
a. it was "melted down" and the raw materials "cast" into the new -- same materials == same ship
b. all parts were replaced but not all at once (swap the saucer and main pylon -- still the same ship; swap the nacelles and engineering hull -- still the same ship)

I favor 7a (but not taken too literally -- it's just that some significant components were reformed as needed and then combined with new components to produce a ship that still retains enough of the original materials to "feel" that it's still *our* Enterprise).
I would have favored Step 4 being constrained as a refit, then we wouldn't be in this mess; but that's not how it happened.

In any case, 7a, 7b, or 7n, the refit doesn't have any substantial original parts in their original configurations and thus isn't informative about the appearance, size, or arrangement of the original parts. The version in step 2, however, can be.

"This is an almost totally new Enterprise." I wonder where that non-new component is hiding!

Note that the above is the production history. The in-universe history is like this:

1. decide to refit enterprise to state-of-the-art
2. spend 18 months redesigning and refitting her
3. end up with an almost totally new Enterprise that looks superficially like the original but is virtually 100% changed in the details
(
4. relegate her to training duty some 10 years or less after that; then destroy her
5. instantly build a new one (or rechristen an existing new or just-refit one)
6. end up with a ship that looks virtually identical on the outside but is virtually 100% changed in the details on the inside
7. decommission her some 5 years or less after that
)


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> And the show "works" for the studio with the purpose of selling advertizing, merchandise, etc. What's your point? To fans, it's more than that.


I'm just as much a fan as anyone else.




uss_columbia said:


> If you don't care about artist's intent, fine.


I said that when?


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> If you don't care about artist's intent, fine. Some do.


Again, let's not resort to extremism.


Everything is relative. 



First, assuming to know every detail of an artist's intent based on an incomplete rough sketch of a craft that was never even finished externally, muchless internally...



you will have to admit that's tenous at best.



Secondly, I only care about artist intent when a preliminary drawing of something that was never built *is not used as a basis to disregard* what I see with my own eyes.



Again. I simply don't agree that CBS's shuttlebay can be said to be in error due to a never-built Jefferies drawing.



Originally the shuttlecraft bay was described as being able to hold a fleet of modern day fighters.



What about the intent of the artist who described the shuttlebay that way?



Whose intent are we to pay attention to?



Are we to ignore what was seen onscreen due to an interpretation of the intent of Jefferies while he was drawing something that was never built?



Heck, for that matter he never finialized the drawing muchless the ship.



Again, I believe CBS's shuttlebay to look very realistic, much more in line with the idea of being able to hold and launch in a reasonable amount of time a fleet of craft.



It's more reasonable then the original shuttlebay, if not perfect.



I believe it's a good match to the refit.



And I simply don't agree that I have to restrict my critique of it's believablility, due to a never finished design of a never built ship.



But that's just one fan's opinion. Everybody is entitled to theirs.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I don't think anyone's saying they *know* the intent. Some of us just like to try to figure it out and really care about it.

I didn't say you don't care about it at all. I said *"if"* you don't, that's fine.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Originally the shuttlecraft bay was described as being able to hold a fleet of modern day fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the intent of the artist who described the shuttlebay that way?


Reference, please? I hadn't heard that one.

BTW




What's with






all the 





blank lines


?


----------



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

Also consider the fact that Aridas pointed out about the shuttlebay being a tight squeeze.

If built exactly as Jefferies drew it in the Phase II Enterprise I would argue it would be impractically small whether you assumed the single shuttlecraft that could be elevated to the launch floor at a time was 24 feet in size or 30 feet.

The TOS E was a military vessel. Whose shuttlebay was described by the same production people who designed it as being able to hold a fleet of modern day sized fighter craft.

Even though I can see that's unlikely to fit, would a lauch floor with one single elevator be very practical?

Would a practical military ship only be able to lift one shuttle at a time to the launch deck?

Would such a ship have to do a complicated below the deck shuffling routine at times when ships tactically needed to both take off and land quickly?

That's just not practical for a military ship in the 23rd Century.


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> Reference, please? I hadn't heard that one.
> 
> BTW
> 
> ...


 
The



Making


Of 


Star 


Trek.


----------



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

The Refit, by contrast, was designed with enough room for two rear elevators and a forward turntable and/or elevator.

Yes, it requires the rear of the launch floor to extend deeper then the pylons.

However, it then allows exponentially faster launches in cases of emergency.

It even allows for the shuffling of up to five full size shuttlecraft for both launching and landing.

Tremendously more practical then only being able to get one shuttle up to or down from the lower deck(s) at a time.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'm just as much a fan as anyone else.
> ...
> I said that when?


I said *"if"* not "when."
I was not implying that you don't care at all, and certainly wasn't implying that you are not a fan. Clearly you care less about artists' intent than some of us do. (I'm not saying that makes you less of a fan, either; please don't infer these types of silliness. It's quite obvious that you are a fan. No two fans are alike; it takes different strokes for different folks, infinite diversity in infinite combinations, and all that.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A bit vague. I've read it many times, but I don't recall that fighter business. Can you give me a page number? Or at least who said it when?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The TOS E was a military vessel.


It was foremost an exploration vessel. It boasted more science labs than weapons. It was not an aircraft carrier or battleship.

Indeed, it never seemed nearly so military as what Meyer/Bennett did to us starting with STII.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The Refit, by contrast, was designed with enough room for two rear elevators and a forward turntable and/or elevator.
> 
> Yes, it requires the rear of the launch floor to extend deeper then the pylons.


The moving up of the pylon mount point opened up lots of space "down below" for a large cargo deck. This was not the configuration of the original ship's pylons.

I thought the big cargo deck and endless streams of cargo trains drawn by work bees was kind of fun, but it's really rather low-tech. I guess Probert never really bought into the concept of the transporter.
It seems the Engineering Hull became more of a Cargo Hull.

(I'm not sure it's really fair to blame this on Probert. Someone before him had spec'ed out the huge cargo bay and even had a multi-storey window in it. (See Probert's web page.))


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> I said *"if"* not "when."
> I was not implying that you don't care at all, and certainly wasn't implying that you are not a fan. Clearly you are less about artists' intent than some of us do.


If by that you mean you are willing to ignore a potential solution to a long festering design flaw because of a never published preliminary drawing of a never built ship you care more about artist intent...

if the definition of caring more about artist intent is ignoring obvious correlations between stuff seen onscreen,

then I guess you do care more about intent.

Though I would question anyone's ability to clearly understand intent, 

I would also question how much that interpretation of intent means considering the drawing was never finished and the ship never built,

and also question whose intent is to be given the priority as there were multiple artists involved at least two of whom's intent were at cross-purposes.






Yes, there are more sugar coated ways to put it - but the problems caused by the shuttlecraft bay as originally seen are there because of a design flaw.

In the TOS drawings and miniature, it was not properly scaled.

The Phase II plans may have resdrawn certain objects, but the problem of not being able to fit a shuttlebay that would be of practical use to a military ship was not fixed by the Phase II plans.

The Refit Enterprise was the first ship with a believably scaled Shuttlebay and hanger deck.

The CBS shuttlebay comes closer, even if not perfect, to the proper original height scaling and expressed *features *of the shuttlebay then the original miniature did.

What about the intent of the object in question itself? The functionality of the shuttlebay as a shuttlebay?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

> What about the intent of the object in question itself? The functionality of the shuttlebay as a shuttlebay?


My garage is only about 4' wider than my car, and that's never been much of a problem. I don't need an aircraft hangar to park a sedan. It would be a "design flaw" if my garage were designed very much larger than it is. It is the right size for the purpose.


----------



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

Also I have to point out, 


we have no way of knowing how deep the original shuttlebay even was.



We have never seen the rear wall. We are just assuming that the POV is from a never seen extreme rear wall.



How do we know that the Point of View that we saw the TOS shuttlecraft launched from was from all the way back against the far wall?



The camera view could have been taken from the middle of the shuttlebay floor, not the rear wall...


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> My garage is only about 4' wider than my car, and that's never been much of a problem. I don't need an aircraft hangar to park a sedan. It would be a "design flaw" if my garage were designed very much larger than it is. It is the right size for the purpose.


 
That's weird!


I was actually going to insert an example of a mom and pop civilian sharing an extremely tight garage as to why it's impractical. :lol:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Also I have to point out,
> we have no way of knowing how deep the original shuttlebay even was.


Correct, we have no clear on-screen indication of how deep the shuttle bay is. We do have off-screen indication in the form of the MJ cross-section from the period. It is further clarified by the Phase II follow-up refit. I give that some weight; you don't. It's pretty clear neither of us will persuade the other with regard to the weight of this art. So, failing some other clues from other sources, we'll just have to disagree.


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> My garage is only about 4' wider than my car, and that's never been much of a problem. I don't need an aircraft hangar to park a sedan. It would be a "design flaw" if my garage were designed very much larger than it is. It is the right size for the purpose.


 
Let me elaborate by using your example.

You have a rear parking garage with a single car driveway leading to your other six or so cars.

You have one or more other cars that need to get into your backyard and several that need to get out.

You only have one driveway width in and one driveway width out, and to get a car in you have to move at least one or more cars out of the way,

and to get just one car out you also have to have all the other cars out of the way.

How quickly could you shuffle them back and forth if you had a neighbor firing bullets and mortars at your driveway and rear garage?

With two rear elevators and a turntable you can shuffle craft tremendously faster. It would actually be efficient. You might even actually be able to launch a craft if one of the elevators went down.

With one elevator when it goes down you are toast.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Referring to Phil Broad's hangar renders cited earlier in this thread, it doesn't look like an excessively tight fit. (He said his shuttle was 31' and I believe his hangar is modeled in a 1080' ship; as I said earlier, if you scale it down to 947' it depicts approximately what a 27' shuttle would look like in a hangar bay that fits the ship.) Do you think it looks impractically tight?

As Aridas said, it's too tight for a STV-style "plan b as in barricade" landing, but give me a break! That's about as believable as flying past deck 79 multiple times on rocket boots. And it's a totally different Enterprise, anyway.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Whoa there. Who says I have six cars and need access to my back yard?
All we know is that I have a turntable to make it easier to pull out of the garage, so I need a garage as wide as my longest car is long.
(We don't even know that that turntable is an elevator to a storage/maintenance facility if you go by what's on screen.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

It's more likely they have a couple of shuttles for emergency use and maybe a few work bees or the like.

Heck, even in an emergency such as transporter (all of them) not working, they don't seem to be equipped with enough shuttles to pick up Sulu et al who are freezing to death on a planet below. Clearly, the shuttle bay isn't a high-volume operation.


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> Referring to Phil Broad's hangar renders cited earlier in this thread, it doesn't look like an excessively tight fit. (He said his shuttle was 31' and I believe his hangar is modeled in a 1080' ship; as I said earlier, if you scale it down to 947' it depicts approximately what a 27' shuttle would look like in a hangar bay that fits the ship.) Do you think it looks impractically tight?


 
Actually I was talking about CBS's shuttlebay, not Phil's.

They are strikingly similar but for the fact that CBS's is deeper then Phil's.

I think that CBS's configuration, which I believe would allow to have five shuttlecraft on deck at a time, is an improvement on what we saw in the original TOS in terms of realism.

Phil's was also a tremendous improvement is realistic use of space. He simply didn't go as far and make it as deep as CBS did or the Refit did.

Phil's was still a tremendous improvement. 

But I believe to add one more shuttlecraft row depth and give the TOS E two rear shuttlebay elevators just like the Refit had in TMP...

takes CBS' shuttle bay _*from tremendously more realistic then the original TOS one was(as Phil's did),*_ to a becoming a bay that seems as if it might be able to offer the original aim of handling a fleet of craft in a practical manner, even under emergency situations.


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> It's more likely they have a couple of shuttles for emergency use and maybe a few work bees or the like.
> 
> Heck, even in an emergency such as transporter (all of them) not working, they don't seem to be equipped with enough shuttles to pick up Sulu et al who are freezing to death on a planet below. Clearly, the shuttle bay isn't a high-volume operation.


The explanation I got of that from James Doohan when I asked him(as a snot nosed twelve year old) was that the shuttlebay hadn't been added yet when that episode was written.

I never bothered to research it and find out if he was correct or that was just a quick answer he was giving snot nosed little punks like me.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Now, in the refit (TMP), we have a greatly expanded cargo area and some obvious shuttle storage below two elevators -- truly an upgrade. (It seems they lost the turntable, though.)

I was just checking on the turntable and also read again about how bad the cargo bay could have been  http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/CargoBay-1.html


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> Whoa there. Who says I have six cars and need access to my back yard?
> All we know is that I have a turntable to make it easier to pull out of the garage, so I need a garage as wide as my longest car is long.


Unless your neighbor takes out that fancy smancy turntable with a mortar or two! Or worse, takes out your biggest car AND that fancy-pants turntable at the same time! 

:tongue:


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> Now, in the refit (TMP), we have a greatly expanded cargo area and some obvious shuttle storage below two elevators -- truly an upgrade. (It seems they lost the turntable, though.)
> 
> I was just checking on the turntable and also read again about how bad the cargo bay could have been  http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/CargoBay-1.html


 
Good link. Aridas refered me to that on awhile back.
Thanks again, Aridas!

If you checkout this page:

http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/CargoBay-3.html

You'll see that there is a forward box in front of the two rear elevators.

There is some kind of yellow paint within that box, it may contain a circular turntable. It's too difficult to read.


----------



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

I guess my main point would be that there is no onscreen evidence in TOS that the shuttlebay in TOS was not that deep.

Again, we never saw the rear wall of the shuttlebay. I believe if one were to transfer the basic design(perhaps also with a similar accordian style rear wall) of the Refit to the TOS ship the design flaws seen in the TOS shuttlebay would instantly disappear.

Also, I think that CBS' remastering of the TOS shuttlebay pretty much *requires* almost the exact same amount of space for the main shuttlebay *launch* floor(perhaps with or without the same partition system or perhaps with a different sized cargo hold).


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The explanation I got of that from James Doohan when I asked him(as a snot nosed twelve year old) was that the shuttlebay hadn't been added yet when that episode was written.




It was most certainly conceived of by then, but they didn't have the set or miniature, I think. Poor writing, they could have at least offered a lame excuse about both shuttles being away in deep space or somesuch.
But the story was about the "good" Kirk being unable to make decisions, not about how there shouldn't have been any need for difficulty in a well-executed ship. (A good share of the episodes would have been stopped in their tracks if we had well-executed engineering.)


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> It was most certainly conceived of by then, but they didn't have the set or miniature, I think. Poor writing, they could have at least offered a lame excuse about both shuttles being away in deep space or somesuch.
> But the story was about the "good" Kirk being unable to make decisions, not about how there shouldn't have been any need for difficulty in a well-executed ship. (A good share of the episodes would have been stopped in their tracks if we had well-executed engineering.)


I don't know. I do know that that rear part was originally smooth and sometime during production clamshells were added.

I think Doohan's explanation that they hadn't invented the shuttlecraft and bay is just as believable as thinking the "good Kirk" couldn't make decisions.

You would think that the rest of the crew wouldn't let their buddies die for fear of taping Kirk on the shoulder and saying, "Ya know Captain, we do have those shuttlecraft."

But then again, in the episode The Naked Time, it always struck me odd as to how Sulu and O'Reilly were the only ones who tried to disarm the guy weilding *the dreaded, deadly butter knife!*

You might have thought maybe one or two more crewmen would have helped try and surround and disarm the guy with the _razor sharp_ *butter knife!* :lol:

So much for teamwork!


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I will point out something that is often lost in these discussions. Naval examples were very pertinent to these people, because verisimilitude was foremost among their goals. NBC bought Star Trek because executives viewing the pilots were impressed by the depth and believability of the concepts and designs shown onscreen. One said he believed these people could really be out there. The use of naval examples was absolutely key to communicating to an audience made up largely of veterans in an age that had a mandatory draft. 

That having been said, let me remind you that *aircraft carriers* have fleets of aircraft in spacious hangars. *Heavy cruisers* have two or four aircraft on a couple of catapults, launched from their _curved fantails_ with the spares kept in small storage spaces. 

Something to consider. 

Also, just to clarify. I *still* believe the artist's intent to be *extremely relevant* in clarifying a design only shown in an impossible, distorted way. The *TOS* hangar set was not meant to be a literal recreation of what would fit in the _Enterprise_ -- it was meant to be a functional model that conveyed the essence of what the story demanded be conveyed, quickly and without scrutiny to a pre-VCR audience. It was distorted to permit photography, not to convey any intent that a fleet of shuttlecraft could fit inside. 

As far as allowing the hangar deck to creep forward and displace the engineering room's place under the nacelles -- a place called for in the cross section -- fine. But then you have to deal with pylons that are joined to only the hull and not to any inner ship structure. I'm not saying any of this is a non-starter. I'm just saying the logic of the well-thought out design gets eroded a bit more with each step taken away from that design. And as I mentioned above -- the logic and verisimilitude of the thing was very important to the success of the show.


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> I'm too confused by your confusion to have any idea how I could clarify. (I've never seen these GEICO caveman commercials. I've heard they're cute.)
> 
> I'll try anyway
> 
> ...


This is where you begin to go astray.

When they said do a new miniature(not a "new ship" a new miniature), they meant that the miniature built for the Phase II series did not have enough surface detail to be used on the big screen.

It was okay for TV, but because they decided to do movie instead, they needed to make a new model that would have a tremendous level of surface detail and be believable on the big screen(in those days prior to the multiplex mini-screens maybe a hundred feet wide?) instead of just being good enough to be believable on good ole' NTSC 480 line TV.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

> I think Doohan's explanation that they hadn't invented the shuttlecraft and bay is just as believable as thinking the "good Kirk" couldn't make decisions.


Not intended to suggest that nobody in-universe thought of shuttles. They obviously either didn't have them or there was a good reason they couldn't be used. I was talking about the point of the *story*, what the writers were more concerned with more than the tech. If you can't remember that the point was that Kirk needed his evil side to be able to make decisions, please watch the episode again before we debate the finer points of it.

As to whether the ship had a hangar yet, refer back to your TMOST -- the shuttlecraft concept was there from very early on. The transporter was invented as a plot device to avoid so many launch/landing sequences.


Hey, butter knives can be very scary!


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> When they said do a new miniature(not a "new ship" a new miniature), they meant that the miniature built for the Phase II series did not have enough surface detail to be used on the big screen.


No, Probert has been quoted here many times by people who talked to him in person saying that he designed it not as a refit but as a new ship. I'll try to find some. Anyone else have them handy?


----------



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

aridas sofia said:


> I will point out something that is often lost in these discussions. Naval examples were very pertinent to these people, because verisimilitude was foremost among their goals. NBC bought Star Trek because executives viewing the pilots were impressed by the depth and believability of the concepts and designs shown onscreen. One said he believed these people could really be out there. The use of naval examples was absolutely key to communicating to an audience made up largely of veterans in an age that had a mandatory draft.
> 
> That having been said, let me remind you that *aircraft carriers* have fleets of aircraft in spacious hangars. *Heavy cruisers* have two or four aircraft on a couple of catapults, launched from their _curved fantails_ with the spares kept in small storage spaces.
> 
> Something to consider.


I agree with everything you said, 

I would pic a nit and point out though. That nit being that even a heavy cruiser wouldn't be caught with a single catapult. I'd liken having two elevators and enough space on-deck for five craft to having about a pair of catapults and the necessary launch space.



aridas sofia said:


> Also, just to clarify. I *still* believe the artist's intent to be *extremely relevant* in clarifying a design only shown in an impossible, distorted way. The *TOS* hangar set was not meant to be a literal recreation of what would fit in the _Enterprise_ -- it was meant to be a functional model that conveyed the essence of what the story demanded be conveyed, quickly and without scrutiny to a pre-VCR audience. It was distorted to permit photography, not to convey any intent that a fleet of shuttlecraft could fit inside.


Also I think we agree on all that too.



aridas sofia said:


> As far as allowing the hangar deck to creep forward and displace the engineering room's place under the nacelles -- a place called for in the cross section -- fine. But then you have to deal with pylons that are joined to only the hull and not to any inner ship structure.


That does bug me a lot. 

But when weighing that against what I believe to be a hanger bay that makes the ship more believable, 

I feel forced to choose the hanger bay over the pylon issue.

I can easily understand how one might make the opposite choice however...





One thing that makes it acceptible to me to have the bay go past the pylons(other then it was also done in TMP) is that I've had to struggle with accepting what I consider to be unbelievably thin decks between floors in almost every Trek cross section I've ever seen.

Maybe it's a backlash against having to swallow what I believe to be unbelievably thin spacing between vertical decks,

but I've come to the conclusion that if we can believe in ridiculously thin spacing between decks...

then why can't we accept the idea of relatively small pylon braces?


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

*Chuck*, on a heavy cruiser only one catapult could launch at a time. The functional equivalent would be a hangar bay that housed _one_ shuttlecraft, ready to launch, with a second on immediate standby forward of the turntable landing on the deck below. On the ship one seaplane is launched and immediately the second catapult is brought up to steam and the second plane is launched. On the starship, one shuttle launches and immediately a second is brought up and launched. If you need a third or fourth seaplane or shuttle, more prep is needed.


----------



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

aridas sofia said:


> *Chuck*, on a heavy cruiser only one catapult could launch at a time. The functional equivalent would be a hangar bay that housed _one_ shuttlecraft, ready to launch, with a second on immediate standby forward of the turntable landing on the deck below. On the ship one seaplane is launched and immediately the second catapult is brought up to steam and the second plane is launched. On the starship, one shuttle launches and immediately a second is brought up and launched. If you need a third or fourth seaplane or shuttle, more prep is needed.


Perhaps(although I have built ships with multiple catapults perhaps my real-world knowledge of ship classes is not what it should be), but on the E the same space is used to not only for launches, but landings as well.

I think it not unreasonable for an interstellar spacecraft expected to be able to travel in deep space on it's own to be able to have more then one access way to the launch deck.

One of the biggest concerns with the new ATF fighters among navy pilots is that unlike the more expensive F-22 it only has ONE engine.

Most navy pilots when having to operate over the ocean like to not be dependent on just one engine.

Similarly, maybe it's the old school NASA type sensibilities in me talking, I wouldn't want to have a deep space craft that only had one elevator to get on and off the launch deck. Two elevators to get either on or off the launch deck is almost a necessity, unless you would have a deep space craft with no backup way of getting to or from the launch area.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

Well, one important consideration is that whether you have two shuttles on deck or not, the idea of connecting the cargo area with the hangar deck is pure Probert. It is impossible on the *TOS* ship unless there is another set of cargo holds in addition to the ones along the keel. We are told on that *Phase 2* cross section and in interviews and elsewhere that most of the markings along the keel of the *TOS* ship are cargo hatches, so the idea was to access the holds there. That works because an engineering room is under the pylons where Probert later puts the cargo space.

Probert can do this because he was dealing with a propulsion layout that was described as entirely different from what was in *TOS*. The placement of the new engineering room midway between the two propulsion systems it governs is in contrast to two engineering rooms, each dedicated to its own propulsion system. *TMoST* and countless dialog references in *TOS* tell us there are engineering rooms in the original ship's saucer as well, which makes sense if you are going to detach that saucer. One hopes Andy had similar spaces in mind for the *TMP* ship's saucer, because although that engineering room at the base of the dorsal might have governed operations of everything connected to that intermix shaft, it wouldn't do much good in a separation scenario.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> No, Probert has been quoted here many times by people who talked to him in person saying that he designed it not as a refit but as a new ship. I'll try to find some. Anyone else have them handy?


Closest quote I could find right now about it being a new ship rather than refit is this about how Probert thought of it as Enterprise class -- first ship of this new class (not Constitution refit):


> In the script, the Enterprise was undergoing a refit, which actually doesn't mean a shape change. It means implementing new technologies and new add-ons essentially to an existing design base. As I developed the Enterprise for The Motion Picture, with Richard, it developed into a totally new design, and therefore I thought, since it was the first of this new starship look, that it should be called Enterprise


Also


> I wanted to actually go larger on the size of the ship, not realizing at the time that the Enterprise was originally in drydock for a refitting.


I guess it might not have been instruction from producers that it was to be a new ship, based on these. But other statements I've read attributed to Probert seemed to more clearly indicate that it wasn't just his decision.
Full interview is here: http://www.trekplace.com/ap2005int01.html.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

More quotes on Probert and it being a new ship:

By Aridas Sofia here on hobby talk 3 years ago (emphasis mine):


> On the question of why the TMP refit got sized to 1000 ft -- I have discussed this with Probert both 20 years ago and as recently as last month, and both times the answers were the same. Taylor wanted to stick by the Jefferies/ Jennings size, and Probert wanted to size things up A LOT for an entirely new Enterprise that would not be a refit in any sense of the word. This ship was drawn up, and believe it or not, with considerable modifications it became the 1701-D eight years later. (The drawing from 1978 had a circular saucer however, not an elliptical one.) Taylor and Probert compromised -- stick much closer to the MJ drawings but settle on an enlarged ship of 1000 feet in length. *This ship was still to have been an entirely new Enterprise, with a new NCC number (1800), but Gene Roddenberry had a change of heart as the model was being built and had the number changed back to 1701, with the order that however much the ship was different, deep inside this new ship there had to be some shred of the old 1701 linking it back to the one from the TV show.*


Another Probert quote (quoted by Pestalence on dynaverse.com):


> here is an e-mail that I received from Mr. Andrew Probert...:
> 
> "I always called it an "Enterprise class" because (even though the script indicates that it is the same ship being "refitted") it is a new ship with new capabilities. That usually means it is a new class which is named after the first ship built in that class."


Second-hand (via Cary L. Brown on bbs.simonsays.com) representation of Probert's words:


> Andy Probert ... was quite clear: the new E was an entirely new vessel, with entirely new capabilities - and an entirely new class as a result.



Back to the discussion of shuttle bay (which is not the topic of this thread anyway , I find this quote from X15-A2 here a year ago germane:


> Er, yeah, the scales must be jiggered to get the Andrew Probert hangar deck into the refit E. The Engineering Hull is just not that big on either the refit or TOS versions. Okay, so the interior is one scale and the exterior is another, on a ship that traverses dimensions as well as normal space, interior volume could be whatever the Captain wants it to be ("TARDIS" anyone..?)...


I haven't done the measurements on the refit to see how close it is to fitting. Anyone?


Well, my wife's been getting after me for being on the computer off and on so much of the day. It's been fun. Till later... :wave:


----------



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

Nothing in those references uss columbia, or any other statement I've read, denies that the ship in TMP used the TOS E as it's source for materials.

Probert would like to take credit for TMP Refit as being his sole creation, perhaps.

He's obviously argued that the Refit is such a radical redesign that it should be considered new class instead of a Constitution Class refit.

Maybe he has a point. I'm not sure at what point the revamping could be said to cross that line.

But not even Probert has ever tried to deny that the ship that became the TMP refit was constructed from the TOS E, by whatever means.

Scotty talked about working on the Refit for 18 months at one point during TMP.

A lot can be done in 18 months.

He didn't say he had been building the ship for 18 months. He had been rebuilding the ship for 18 months.

It seems impossible to us that the original was used. But we don't have warp drive, transporter technology, nor Replicator technology for that matter either.

Considering the potential of transporter/replicator technology. I can easily imagine them running devices down the ships corridors that converted the corridors and bulkheads - even wiring, plumbing and circuitry - as easily as someone today might run a steamroller down a new blacktop, or a janitor might use an industrial floor polishing machine.


----------



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

Again, the most undeniable evidence of the fact that the Ship seen in TMP was physically a continuation of the TOS E is seen both when the crew learns the Enterprise will be decommissioned, and again when they are forced to destroy her to keep her away from the Klingons.

Hearing that the original Refit was going to be decomissioned and scrapped was a major plot twist - albeit at the end - of the second movie.



It was an obvious blow to all the characters.



They *weren't reacting to loosing a brand new* Enterprise.

They were reacting to loosing *THE* Enterprise.

There is no getting around that.



That major point was further reinforced when they were forced to destroy the Enterprise.

They were clearly destroying *THE* Enterprise, as evidenced by their reactions.

It's one of the most moving scenes to fans of TOS in all of the movies.



It ranks up there with the first Flyby and Kirk's death.
Does anybody really think that they were mourning a brand new ship?


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

By the Okuda timeline, there is more than a decade between *TMP* and TWOK. I believe they even follow the *FRS* lead and say Kirk had two more 5 year missions in the "refit" 1701. If that was the intention when the ship was needlessly destroyed in TSFS, then the emotion is understandable. They spent a lot more time in that ship than they did walking the halls of the ship Kirk inherited from Pike.

There is a precedent for the kind of thing we are discussing. In Baltimore harbor there is a ship -- the USS _Constellation_ -- that is the last ship to have been built by the US Navy to be designed as a full sailing vessel -- no steam. It was built in Norfolk in the 1850s under a contract that specified an older _Constellation_ -- the _first_ ship commissioned to the new Federal navy -- be refit. The Navy refit it alright. They stripped it down to the keel, reused most of that keel and nothing much else, and ended up with a "refit" that was between 90-95% a new vessel. It had wholly new lines. It went from frigate to sloop. And on the books? It was the same ship. It took historians 150 years of research to nail down what had happened. To many of the people dealing with it, the new _Constellation_ and the original ship were one and the same. 

But it wasn't so.

To me, this is the kind of thing that happened with 1701. When we did the *FRS* and *Ships of the Star Fleet* books, we considered the NCC number to be attached to a _spaceframe_. This frame, perhaps made of some incredibly hard material like the cast rodinium from Outpost 4's protective shield, would be reused if possible. Everything would be stripped off and the frame dismantled and new saucer and secondary hull decks be built over the old frame, new hull put in place, new nacelles attached and the ship relaunched. New lines, new ship, but original frame. So, original NCC number.

YMMV, of course.


----------



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

aridas sofia said:


> By the Okuda timeline, there is more than a decade between *TMP* and TWOK. I believe they even follow the *FRS* lead and say Kirk had two more 5 year missions in the "refit" 1701. If that was the intention when the ship was needlessly destroyed in TSFS, then the emotion is understandable. They spent a lot more time in that ship than they did walking the halls of the ship Kirk inherited from Pike.
> 
> There is a precedent for the kind of thing we are discussing. In Baltimore harbor there is a ship -- the USS _Constellation_ -- that is the last ship to have been built by the US Navy to be designed as a full sailing vessel -- no steam. It was built in Norfolk in the 1850s under a contract that specified an older _Constellation_ -- the _first_ ship commissioned to the new Federal navy -- be refit. The Navy refit it alright. They stripped it down to the keel, reused most of that keel and nothing much else, and ended up with a "refit" that was between 90-95% a new vessel. It had wholly new lines. It went from frigate to sloop. And on the books? It was the same ship. It took historians 150 years of research to nail down what had happened. To many of the people dealing with it, the new _Constellation_ and the original ship were one and the same.
> 
> ...


 
Nothing above disagrees with my viewpoint of what happened either.

I would go further and say it seems very un-futuristic to spend a ton of time stripping off metric ton apon metric ton of materials to be replaced.

I think it could have been removed and refabricated almost instantly using some kind of transporter/replicator technology.

Why transport tons apon tons of new material into orbit if you can recycle the already existing mass?

Again though, we both basically agree that original material of the TOS E was used. 

Even if someone were to prove the entire ship was melted down into a gigantic ball of metal and then beaten into the new design using hammers and a orbiting forge, it's still the same ship. Yes, it doesn't exactly resemble the original in many ways, but if it's made of the same molecules that still means something.

Much in the way that steel from the World Trade Center Towers were melted down and made into the bow of the U.S.S. New York, built here in New Orleans recently.

Whether it was just the frame or a combination of the frame and recycled masses of the rest of the ship, she was the same ship that carried the crew in TOS, just in a heavily modified form.


----------



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

aridas sofia said:


> YMMV, of course.


----------



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

For another example, look at some of the Hollywood types who have had so much plastic surgery that they look nothing like they used to look like.

Take Michael Jackson for example.

He's still the same guy who used to sing for the Jackson Five.
He hasn't changed a bit. He is still the same old guy he was before he had all that radical plastic surgery.

eh....

on second thought...

Maybe that's not such a good example.


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

I guess it is a matter of how much of the original ship one believes is still there, and what form it takes. I think only about 5-10% is left, in the spaceframe. The rest is new. Why "melt down" the old ship if what you need is her spaceframe, and if your CO is eventually going to descibe you as

"...almost an entirely new _Enterprise_..."

Of course, that means that the 90% that wasn't the spaceframe might have survived the refit, was removed, possibly for study to see the effects of surviving a five year mission. To destroy such an important historic resource before thoroughly studying it would violate even our "backwards" standards. In our time, many historic structures still get torn down and their rubble reused when possible, taken to a landfill most often. But many laws are beginning to frown upon it. The WW2 aircraft carrier _Enterprise_ was melted down for scrap in the late Fifties -- that fate will not meet her nuclear cousin, which I'd say is destined to be a museum ship. 

What would happen to the removed and saved parts of 1701 when they are done studying them? Ah, there lies a tale. Stay tuned to our work at the *FRS* website, and my new "*SFYARDS.COM*" website when it gets up and running, to see our take on the answer to that question.

YMMV (="*Y*our *M*ileage *M*ay *Vary*")


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

(Re: quote about Probert hangar/cargo deck not fitting in the refit)


uss_columbia said:


> I haven't done the measurements on the refit to see how close it is to fitting. Anyone?


Now I have. Probert's own side view shows that it fits vertically and lengthwise. I checked that his scaling on this drawing is consistent (length of secondary hull, largest diameter of secondary hull, height of doors, length of work bee with cargo pods), and it checks out fine. So, the only possible issues would be width and possible upsizing in the set or matte paintings relative to this drawing.

I measured the approximate width of the cargo bay in a screen grab of the film (from probertdesigns.com) using the cargo pod dimensions and the human figures as references. The width looks to be about 90-95' at widest, plus the cargo containers on the walls have to have somewhere to go other than hanging out into space, so that adds another 10' to each side: 110-115' total. So, it just about fits in a secondary hull that's 110-115' at its widest. (Measuring the largest diameter of the hull on Probert's cross-section, it's 116'; on the Kimble blueprint, it's 108' when scaled to LOA of 1000' (rather than the 990' Kimble records).

So, the parts we see definitely fit. The only problematic items are the cargo containers stuck in the outer walls, which would extend to the very edge of the outer hull if not slightly beyong. Perhaps the containers we see on the outside walls aren't full containers but just spare front panels.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Probert would like to take credit for TMP Refit as being his sole creation, perhaps.


I'm sure he's not trying to take credit where it isn't due. In all the interviews I've read, he's credited the original proportions to the rightful designers. He just did the details: final scaling, reaction control thrusters, interiors that fit in the ship, etc. (Now the 1701-D is wholly his creation, but not the refit.)



> But not even Probert has ever tried to deny that the ship that became the TMP refit was constructed from the TOS E, by whatever means.


And noone is arguing that he did or that it isn't technically a refit in-universe.

Please don't confuse production design with in-universe canon. In the canon it was (technically) a refit always. In the design, for at least part of it, Probert didn't think it was a true refit but rather was an entirely new ship.

I thought I was clear before, but you still seem to misunderstand me, so let me be perfectly clear:

I believe it to be a refit (technically) according to the Star Trek universe canon.
I believe Probert intended it to be a new ship rather than a refit during design/production work for the film.

(The "technically" refers to how incredibly extensive the refit was, leaving no recognizable portion of the original. This may have been done more for political (nostalgic?) reasons than practical ones. Now if they just salvaged the material and then refabricated it into an entirely new ship, is that new ship technically still the original ship since it has the original mass (or much of it)? Or is it a new ship built with reclaimed mass? Again, the answer is more political or nostalgic than it is practical.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

aridas sofia said:


> There is a precedent for the kind of thing we are discussing. In Baltimore harbor there is a ship -- the USS _Constellation_ -- that is the last ship to have been built by the US Navy to be designed as a full sailing vessel -- no steam. It was built in Norfolk in the 1850s under a contract that specified an older _Constellation_ -- the _first_ ship commissioned to the new Federal navy -- be refit. The Navy refit it alright. They stripped it down to the keel, reused most of that keel and nothing much else, and ended up with a "refit" that was between 90-95% a new vessel. It had wholly new lines. It went from frigate to sloop. And on the books? It was the same ship. It took historians 150 years of research to nail down what had happened. To many of the people dealing with it, the new _Constellation_ and the original ship were one and the same.


Very interesting!

What was the class name of this Constellation before the "refit"? What class name afterward? (You know where I'm going.  )


----------



## aridas sofia (Feb 3, 2004)

In those days ships were one of a kind. The original _Constellation_ from 1797 was one of the original three frigates (_Constitution_ and _United States_ were the others) ordered for the new Federal Navy in anticipation of war with France, and was the first ship commissioned in the Navy. In 1854 a new ship was built in Norfolk using some of the timbers from the original frigate, _under a contract to *refit* the frigate_. The first three frigates each had differing configurations -- _Constitution_ was a 44 gun heavy frigate built like a battleship while _Constellation_ was a 38 gun frigate built more for speed than strength. Likewise, the new 1854 ship was a one-off design. 

THE 1797 FRIGATE:

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/c13/constellation-i.htm

THE 1854 SLOOP:

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/c13/constellation-ii.htm


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

My own research agrees with USS Columbia. Fitting the cargo bay as depicted in Probert’s matte painting becomes very tight. Compared at the widest part of the secondary hull, the fit is comfortable, with room to spare outboard of the cargo alcoves. However, at the aft end of the cargo bay, the lower outboard alcoves get very close to the outer hull. It largely depends on how you size the cargo pods. 

A year or so ago someone (Mitchell Gore?) worked up some dimensions from set blueprints. The cargo bay was constructed from the Phase II Adm. Nogura’s office. According to those blueprints each quad pod alcove had an opening about 15’ x 8’6” and an assumed depth of about 8’. If you work from the Kimble TMP workbee/cargo train sheets you get dimensions of about 13’ x 7’6” x 6’6”.

The smaller size cargo pods and a corresponding smaller cargo bay can just barely be made to fit within the exterior hull at the aft end of the cargo bay. The larger pods, as actually constructed and filmed, result in the aft most pods extending outside the hull. An additional problem with the larger pods is that the outboard ends would be right up against the exterior hull where the filming model has the three closely spaced viewports on the cargo deck level. There would be no room for a person to squeeze in there and look out.


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> refit in-universe.


Again, I must ask the GEICO caveman question...

*"What!?!"*


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> (Re: quote about Probert hangar/cargo deck not fitting in the refit)
> 
> 
> Now I have. Probert's own side view shows that it fits vertically and lengthwise. I checked that his scaling on this drawing is consistent (length of secondary hull, largest diameter of secondary hull, height of doors, length of work bee with cargo pods), and it checks out fine. So, the only possible issues would be width and possible upsizing in the set or matte paintings relative to this drawing.
> ...


 

So you verified that the Probert hanger deck and cargo bay fits inside the Probert refit...

Okay.


----------



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

aridas sofia said:


> Why "melt down" the old ship if what you need is her spaceframe, and if your CO is eventually going to descibe you as
> 
> "...almost an entirely new _Enterprise_..."


Well, that *assumes* that that is all they needed. But more on that later.

However, I would have to answer primarily because



aridas sofia said:


> To destroy such an important historic resource before thoroughly studying it would violate even our "backwards" standards. In our time, many historic structures still get torn down and their rubble reused when possible, taken to a landfill most often. But many laws are beginning to frown upon it. The WW2 aircraft carrier _Enterprise_ was melted down for scrap in the late Fifties


To your own answer to your own question I would add a couple of things.

To start off with, I'm not against your idea that 90% or more of the ship might have been changed. It's the issue of what was done with that material that you feel was simply removed that doesn't quite make sense to me.

One, it's undeniable that the space frame is not all they would need when building the new ship.

How about replacing that 90% of the stuff you are guessing they ripped out and changed into new space debris?

Even in the 24th Century, I'm sure it would take time and effort to transport away all that mass to some museum or laboratory. I think it more likely that if they wanted to study it that they would take extensive scans and a few samples, rather then save all that mass for study.

Your premise that 90% of it wasn't recycled on-site creates yet a new problem in that they now have to haul all that garbage away or expend the energy to vaporize it.

To me it would make more sense for them to use the mass, by using a transporter/replicator to turn it into energy, and then directly back into the exact materials they need.

Yes, by my own idea, they could just have big matter/antimatter powered reactors on the spacedock that powered the transporters/replicators so they didn't even have to use the old materials. 

But if they did reuse the original mass by beaming it in as it was and beaming it out as new construction materials; 

they could then skip the entire hassle of needing to remove or destroy that 90% of the ship that you estimate was changed.




I could see them saving some samples of the original ship for study, but 90% of it's mass?

That's a lot of samples!  

I hope they had a FedEx-Kinkos on that Spacedock to do the packing and shipping for them.


----------



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

*"Hello, this is SpaceDock One's FedEx Kinkos, how may I help you?"*

"Eh... I have a few scientific samples I need to ship to Alpha Centauri."

*"No problem, sir. We have FedEx freighters leaving twice a solar day."*

"Well can you label all the samples or at least do you have your own boxes?"

*"Well of course, we have a whole back room full of boxes sir!"*

"Okay. Great. I'll have our people start bringing the pieces to your airlock."

*"Well, sir. Couldn't you just beam them over?"*

"Too much energy. Besides the pieces are already floating around nearby."

*"Okay, well. I guess that is doable, though it seems a bit old-fashioned."*

"Great!"

*"How much stuff are we talking about shipping sir?"*

"Not much. Just 90% of the Starship Enterprise. Constitution Class. You *did* say you had a lot of boxes, didn't you?"

*"CLICK!!!"*

"Hello?... Hello?... Hello!?!... Hmmm... We seem to have lost the connection."


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

ZStar said:


> My own research agrees with USS Columbia. Fitting the cargo bay as depicted in Probert’s matte painting becomes very tight. Compared at the widest part of the secondary hull, the fit is comfortable, with room to spare outboard of the cargo alcoves. However, at the aft end of the cargo bay, the lower outboard alcoves get very close to the outer hull. It largely depends on how you size the cargo pods.
> 
> A year or so ago someone (Mitchell Gore?) worked up some dimensions from set blueprints. The cargo bay was constructed from the Phase II Adm. Nogura’s office. According to those blueprints each quad pod alcove had an opening about 15’ x 8’6” and an assumed depth of about 8’. If you work from the Kimble TMP workbee/cargo train sheets you get dimensions of about 13’ x 7’6” x 6’6”.
> 
> The smaller size cargo pods and a corresponding smaller cargo bay can just barely be made to fit within the exterior hull at the aft end of the cargo bay. The larger pods, as actually constructed and filmed, result in the aft most pods extending outside the hull. An additional problem with the larger pods is that the outboard ends would be right up against the exterior hull where the filming model has the three closely spaced viewports on the cargo deck level. There would be no room for a person to squeeze in there and look out.


Interesting analysis. If you happen to have some diagrams you drew up on this, I'd be interested to see them.

On the size of the cargo containers, there's an interesting thread over at trekbbs that has a production drawing of the containers and an analysis.

BTW, welcome on board!

Edit: I see you've actually been a (lurking?) member for some time.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

Thanks for the welcom USS Columbia. Yes, I have have been a lurker here for a number of years. I have been quietly soaking up the collective wisdom. I figured it was about time I started sharing some of my own. 

Thanks for the link. The production drawing at the top of the thread was the one I was refering to. Apparently, someone has a clearer copy where the dimensions are legible.

I'll see what I can do about posting a diagram later. Perhaps I should start a new thread at that point since the cargo bay is technically OT in this one.


----------



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

Might want to try a title like Refit Interior Blueprints/Layouts or something thereabouts.

By all means I too would like to see anything you have in the way of cross-sections for the refit, especially the secondary hull.

I'm surprised there have been no "official" orthographics done of it, and only one or two fan attempts.

Anything you can post would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance, and welcome in from the shadows! 
Chuck


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

ZStar said:


> I'll see what I can do about posting a diagram later. Perhaps I should start a new thread at that point since the cargo bay is technically OT in this one.


That never seems to stop the rest of us! 

What do you say, everyone: shall we start a new thread for which the real topic is "fitting the shuttle bay in the Enterprise (TOS, refit, -A)" and continue that discussion there?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Over on the starship modeler forums, 12 mos ago, I think his sign in was lestatdelc or something close, took the Nogura blueprints and totally and definitively exhausted the topic. Some very impressive graphics to go with it. Surely someone here knows of the link or downloaded his work. The files were unfortunately too big for my stone-age dial up connection.


----------



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

starseeker said:


> Over on the starship modeler forums, 12 mos ago, I think his sign in was lestatdelc or something close, took the Nogura blueprints and totally and definitively exhausted the topic. Some very impressive graphics to go with it. Surely someone here knows of the link or downloaded his work. The files were unfortunately too big for my stone-age dial up connection.


Which topic? 

The TOS E bridge?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

uss_columbia said:


> That never seems to stop the rest of us!
> 
> What do you say, everyone: shall we start a new thread for which the real topic is "fitting the shuttle bay in the Enterprise (TOS, refit, -A)" and continue that discussion there?


Yes, I think that makes the most sense. So, please do.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I think that's been taken care of WRT refit. 

If anyone's missed it and is interested, please see ZStar's "refit interior" thread.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled topic...


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I have a set of the Mike McMaster version and it seems pretty accurate to me.


----------



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

They are for the most part.

The Alcove/Turbolift area is completely wrong.

Other then that it's been said the Central Control area is a bit off - but no one has said in what way(but I've been told by a couple of people I trust that it is).

The only other issue I know of is, of course, the viewscreen and area to the sides of it are drawn to match the TAS and not the TOS configuration.

Those are the three main areas/things I know about.

But as far as I know 90% plus of the prints are indistinguishable from the original with the exception of the TAS viewing screen area and the totally screwed up Alcove/Elevator area.

The Alcove/Elevator area needs a total rework.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

ChuckPR,

I'd like to see evidence that McMaster's turbo alcove area is wrong. I've never noticed anything really inaccurate about that area of the blueprints. Can you post something that shows the discrepancies?

Thanks,
M.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The geometry of the walls making up the alcove, when seen in the plan view, is wrong.

The lengths of the wall segments can be established fairly closely, based on available data, which means that they can only fit together in one way, that is, only one way when two other "givens" are added into the equation. One of these being the distance between the end points and one other, which no one has yet shown correctly in any plan view of the Bridge.

The other "given" which has been left out of every single drawing so far (at least of those that I am aware of) is that the stub walls which form the end caps of the outer console ring do not have parallel inner and outer surfaces.

The outer surfaces are at a 90 degree angle to the face of the adjoining console while the side facing the turbolift alcove tappers inwards as it approaches the door. There are many many examples of shots on the Bridge where the camera is lined up directly on the plane of the outer wall surface, butting up against the console, and yet the inner wall surface is still visible. This can only be explained one way, those surfaces are not parallell.

Only by including that angle difference can an accurate plan of that area be drawn. Without it, the alcove is always frustratingly too shallow. Tappering the walls inwards pushes the turbolift doors further from the Bridge center point, thus making it somewhat deeper.

Mark, check the Bridge frame grabs I sent you. I saved quite a few because they showed just that detail. The split in the carpet where the ring sections come appart are also useful when studying this detail. A line drawn along the base of the wall will intersect that split line, not follow it to a common vanishing point.

This is another example (as if we needed more...) of how our preset assumptions can throw things off.


----------



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

*Edit: Plus all the stuff this guy above me said while I was typing. ^^^^^^*



The biggest one is that in the overhead view the walls that extend alongside the first consoles on either side are missing. I've been told by a couple of other people(Phil Broad and Ziz) that there are other problems with it too. I'll see if I can erase some stuff and add an attachment here or I'll email you.


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> The geometry of the walls making up the alcove, when seen in the plan view, is wrong.
> 
> The lengths of the wall segments can be established fairly closely, based on available data, which means that they can only fit together in one way, that is, only one way when two other "givens" are added into the equation. One of these being the distance between the end points and one other, which no one has yet shown correctly in any plan view of the Bridge.


 
I'm not sure I understand.

Mind drawing us a few orthographic pictures with scales inserted so we can better understand you? :devil:


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> The other "given" which has been left out of every single drawing so far (at least of those that I am aware of) is that the stub walls which form the end caps of the outer console ring do not have parallel inner and outer surfaces.
> 
> The outer surfaces are at a 90 degree angle to the face of the adjoining console while the side facing the turbolift alcove tappers inwards as it approaches the door. There are many many examples of shots on the Bridge where the camera is lined up directly on the plane of the outer wall surface, butting up against the console, and yet the inner wall surface is still visible. This can only be explained one way, those surfaces are not parallell.
> 
> ...


Might want to do the same for the above stuff too, just to be clear. ^^^

Oh, and go ahead and throw in the Commander Center and areas surrounding and including the Viewscreen too if you have a few extra minutes... :devil:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

(oops, I was talking to the wrong person)


----------



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

Starseeker, which topic were you refering to earlier when you wrote:





starseeker said:


> Over on the starship modeler forums, 12 mos ago, I think his sign in was lestatdelc or something close, took the Nogura blueprints and totally and definitively exhausted the topic. Some very impressive graphics to go with it. Surely someone here knows of the link or downloaded his work. The files were unfortunately too big for my stone-age dial up connection.


a bunch of people were talking about the refit at the time and I don't know whether you meant the Refit of the Bridge. Would like to know before going digging...


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

"lestatdelc" that was the posting name of the guy. He had a long thread about the layout of the TMP cargo bay and shuttle bay.

The last I remember, he was in contact with Andy Probert about resolving the half deck offset between the inside and the outside. Then there was nothing more that was posted as far as I know.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I searched but couldn't find his posts on the subject. (He's a member here, too, but with only 1 post and quite some time ago.) I'll try to contact him.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Starseeker, which topic were you refering to earlier when you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I rember that guy, he lived here in Portland.
And the main reason he joined SSM bosrds was to get a bunch of info on the refit before attempting to build the PL refit. I don't recall when he made his last post, but he did make several though.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The biggest one is that in the overhead view the walls that extend alongside the first consoles on either side are missing. I've been told by a couple of other people(Phil Broad and Ziz) that there are other problems with it too. I'll see if I can erase some stuff and add an attachment here or I'll email you.


Do you mean the walls that extend radially in from the outermost circle toward the inside, parallel with the sides of the consoles? If so, isn't that what we see at the ends of the dashed lines labeled "edge of vent grid"? I'm confused.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Here are some links to frame caps from trekcore that show the alcove details fairly well:
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=31&pos=14
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=31&pos=59
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=31&pos=73
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=31&pos=101

I don't see a glaring error in the mcmasters. Can someone please point at the problem for me. Thanks.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

x15-a2: I think I understand what you mean about the non-parallel surfaces of the "stub wall." With the walls getting "thicker" as they approach the lift doors and the deepening of the alcove this forces, the lift may fit even better in the exterior feature (perhaps centering the lift whereas the best diagram I've seen so far has it a bit closer to the bridge side of the exterior tube than the outer side). I haven't seen a picture that shows the non-parallel sides yet, will have to look more later.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I found images where it looks like I can see the inner and outer surfaces at the same time, which would tend to prove it. Alas, none is clear enough for me to be sure.
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=38&pos=202
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=43&pos=26
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=69&pos=82
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=48&pos=2

I have seen several that appear to be aligned with the station edge and can certainly see the inner wall, as you say. But I'd like to see an image where I see both inner and outer wall together, which would really clinch it.

This one would be interesting if I could just see a few dozen more pixels on the left.
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=75&pos=325


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Well, the animated series artists had noticed it, apparently. 
See http://homepage.mac.com/m5comp/trekbits/trekpics/TAS_Bridge_Scan.jpg.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

X15-A2: You da man! :thumbsup: 
What angle would you estimate is between these wall surfaces? (I know you're very good at analyzing photos for angles and such.)

BTW, I think these are pretty good images to show the inner and outer surfaces both visible at once. This may be as good as can be found from DVD caps. I haven't been able to find any actual stills of the set from that angle.
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=20&pos=80
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=38&pos=202
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=43&pos=26

(They're repeats of images linked above, just the best ones.)

I'm glad this thread came back to life! I thought the topic had been beaten to death, then along comes this significant new observation. Thanks!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The best way to study this area is by finding a low-angle shot which shows the floor. Here is my take on it:

This image shows the floor, split line and wall geometry.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Turbolift_Stub_Wall_Photo_Layout_Ph.jpg

This is a screen grab of my unfinished plan of the Bridge which shows how this translates to the CAD environment.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Turbolift_Stub_Wall_Plan_Phil_Broad.jpg


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The "given" points are circled in yellow on the photo view. Once they are established, all you need to do is translate the intersection point (circled in purple) to your drawing then strike a line from it to the inner corner of your stub wall to establish the angle of the first wall segment. The intersection point is scaled directly from the photo to your drawing proportionally, as a point along the known-length blue line (which you establish by determining how wide the floor is at that point).

This is not perfect and there is a tiny amount of error incured because the scale is not actually constant along the split line (shown in blue) but the margin is minimal because the segment is so short. Close enough for me anyway.


----------



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

That is some incredible work, Phil!

I hope one day soon you'll be at a point where you feel comfortable sharing the plans and files with us.

Have you heard about Aridas' project to do 3D layouts of the entire TOS interior?
He's currently working on the bridge to at this moment.

If someone could build a website where everyone could upload all of the 3D work they have all done on various parts of the TOS E, people could have a base to work with and tweak, refine and repost whatever sections in newer updated files as well.

Sort of like a 3D Wikipedia except that originals would not be destroyable.

People could download parts of the ship they were interested in, or maybe share observations that the original artist may not have noticed, etc.

Making the whole thing an open platform for enventually coming up with a complete TOS E interior.

People who differed as to what should be where(where it's debatable) could come up with their own sections. People could then pick and choose and plug in whatever components made the most sense to them.

Once enough people jumped on the bandwagon projects or threads that subdivided certain sections of the ship could be started and people work on those, post them, another section introduced, worked on, etc.

Combining the efforts of people from all over I think an interior could be done at a reasonably fast pace.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I just watched New Voyages: To Serve All My Days (an excellent episode, by the way -- by the standard of any Star Trek series) ...
Anyway, I was noticing the bridge alcove when the shot was aligned with the station edge, and it does not have the tapered walls of the original set. (This means either that their set was not made according to the original construction blueprints or that the original blues aren't accurate to the original set as-built in this respect.)


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

OK, I apparently have WAY too much free time (which I really don't), but I just reread many earlier pages of this thread to relish the back and forth between mgagen and CRA. Mgagen thoroughly stomps him at every turn with logic and factual data and CRA keeps bouncing back. As Trek Ace said, very entertaining. :thumbsup:


----------



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

I think MGagen usually prevails, but CRA makes lots of counterpoints.

I think the two complement each other(not literally, of course :tongue: ) quite well.

Neither would be as sharp without the other.

Anybody else feel moved to start singing "_*Cumbaya*_?"


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I hesitate to bring back up this off-topic portion of the thread, but I just came across the post I was looking for from years ago that came up a couple of weeks ago but I couldn't find. What do you know! It was right here in this same thread just a few pages (and years) back.

I happened upon it today by chance, _but the images are gone_. _I wonder if someone might have them saved and could send them to me._
(I emailed Dennis, too; but it might not reach him: he hasn't posted since 2005, it seems.)


To find out what the heck I'm talking about, read on. 




uss_columbia said:


> Chuck_P.R. said:
> 
> 
> > uss_columbia said:
> ...



And here's what I couldn't find then, which was hiding in plain sight back on page 18 of this very thread:


Dennis Bailey said:


> I've built a CG model of the hangar interior that will fit inside the 947 foot model and that matches the hangar as seen on tv -- in terms of scale, anyway. The only real issue is that those "pockets" on either side jut out into space, and it's occurred to me since building the thing that I could probably resolve this by making a different assumption about the lenses used.
> 
> I consulted FJoesph's blueprints and the drawings in "Making Of Star Trek", but I didn't build from either -- I used DVD clips of the miniature set from the series, and matched my rendered images to that, moving things around and rescaling as necessary. I'll try to post a link to an image later -- one might quibble with some of the details (such as the floor markings on my version) but I think one can see that the scale works.


And the very next post contained the image, but it's not on the server anymore. 
_Anyone have a copy?_


(Chuck: I don't want to start up the debate again about whether a workable hangar can fit (at least not in this thread); I just want to see Dennis' render again.)

Edit: my email to Dennis did bounce, as I feared. Does anyone know a current email for him or another board he hangs out on these days? BTW, is this the same Dennis Bailey that wrote for TNG and Starship Exeter?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

http://www.unitedworlds.net/forums/index.php?s=1 is the forum that Dennis runs.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I think MGagen usually prevails, but CRA makes lots of counterpoints.
> 
> I think the two complement each other(not literally, of course :tongue: ) quite well.
> 
> ...


I like to think that most of our disagreements are mainly matters of miscommunication, thanks to the limitations of online communication, namely the difficultly in expressing tone and inflection, as well as the delay factor in replying.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Captain April said:


> I like to think that most of our disagreements are mainly matters of miscommunication, thanks to the limitations of online communication, namely the difficultly in expressing tone and inflection, as well as the delay factor in replying.


You--! I'll KILL you for saying that!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Captain April said:


> I like to think that most of our disagreements are mainly matters of miscommunication, thanks to the limitations of online communication, namely the difficultly in expressing tone and inflection, as well as the delay factor in replying.


  Are you talking about the same debate?!? 

"I like to think" you should go back and read it again...

M.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Yes, I am talking about the same debates, since half the time I'd see you reply and wonder what the _heck_ you were talking about, since you tended to pounce on points I never made, or at least carried them to degrees I never intended.

On the larger issues, we generally agree. It's the finer details that things sometimes get hairy, oftentimes unnecessarily so.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

You didn't re-read it, did you?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Specify. There have been so many.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Alright, we're not going to get in to these old issues you two have with each other. It's petty and not at all conducive to a debate on the subject. I'll BAN the next offender for Ten Days and seriously consider locking the thread.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Captain April, could you clarify something for me?

Not to bring up old issues that were adequately covered before ...

You posted these recently in the 'how big is the Enterprise' thread:



Captain April said:


> Bob Justman said that their opinion was that it faced forward. The impression I got was that the issue of the location of the turbolift doors in relation to the surface details of the miniature wasn't even considered.





Captain April said:


> Given that the official stance is that the bridge faces forward (just ask Mike Okuda; tell him I said "hi"), ...



And long ago, you posted in this thread:



Captain April said:


> Bob Justman disagrees with you. And he's still around to debate the issue.


Mark questioned the source of this. In reply:



Captain April said:


> Looks like I'm gonna have to dig up my old posts.
> 
> But before I do that, I'd like to state again, for the record, that I do not believe that anybody on the show, Matt Jefferies, Gene Roddenberry, Bob Justman, whoever, "accepted" a skewed bridge, because I don't think they ever caught the discrepancy, at least not until Franz Joseph pointed it out when he did his deck plans, by which point, not a lot of people were all that concerned. If they did notice, they just figured the viewers either wouldn't give a rip, or assume the turbolift did something behind that wall that we weren't privy to.


Did you ever find the source for the Bob Justman statement?

So, Bob Justman said it was his opinion that it faced forward, but none of Bob Justman, Matt Jefferies, or Gene Roddenberry had formed any opinion on it at all at the time. That means Mr. Justman's opinion, formed later, has little relevance. (Unless of course he then had a discussion with Mr. Jefferies about his original intent.)

As to Matt Jefferies not being aware, that can't be right. He's the one that carefully placed the lift tube at just the right distance to correspond to the lift tube, obviously well aware that the bridge would not face forward. (There are diagrams and detailed explanations about that in this thread. And more recently in X15-A2's "it fits" thread.)

It's clear that MJ was aware of it being offset, but maybe he kept it to himself. (He may not have really liked it offset; he fixed it in the Phase II design.)

As MGagen has said, MJ cared more about external symmetry than a forward-facing bridge. Trek Ace suggested a possible reason: that symmetry was needed for filming the starboard side and reversing it to appear as the port side.

And this quote from the thread I linked to above seems particularly appropriate:


X15-A2 said:


> I must agree with Mgagen who has many times stated on this BB that Mr. Jefferies was quite scrupulous about creating truly "integrated" designs, designs where the interiors actually fit inside the exteriors.
> This is quite rare in Hollywood.




And where's the "official position" you speak of established? It isn't in the official canon. (Or has it been retconned? Did the remastered Menagerie shot show it forward facing?) Do you mean that Paramount has taken an actual "official position"? I missed the press release. More information on what Mike Okuda said, please.

I'm not just stirring an old kettle. Really. I'm genuinely interested in just what Mr. Justman said and the context of his statement. I'd also like to know how Mr. Okuda fits in (obviously, he wasn't involved in the original production; but I have respect for his research and other work).


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The Justman comment was passed on my Rick Sternbach on one of the TrekBBS threads.

And, as Mark pointed out, the sets were designed and built before a final size on the ship had even been decided on, so I think that takes care of the "carefully placed" turbolift doors.

And as for which aspect took priority, how the ship and the sets looked on screen took a much higher priority than the technical minutiae being debated by a group of fans some forty years later. They were a little more worried about being bought by a network and making it through a first season.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Captain April said:


> And, as Mark pointed out, the sets were designed and built before a final size on the ship had even been decided on, so I think that takes care of the "carefully placed" turbolift doors.


Yes. The set was designed, and then the tube was carefully placed on the model at the right distance. It's the _tube_ not the doors, BTW.



> And as for which aspect took priority, how the ship and the sets looked on screen took a much higher priority than the technical minutiae being debated by a group of fans some forty years later. They were a little more worried about being bought by a network and making it through a first season.


True, but I don't see the point. Consistent design of interior and exterior is possible while looking nice on the screen. MJ was obviously aware of how they fit together. The screen never showed which direction the viewscreen actually faced, and it simply wasn't important for how it looked on the TV.

I think it was uncommon attention to detail, but MJ rocked!!


You still didn't explain the Mike Okuda / "official position" thing.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

An interesting point came up in the discussion over in the "how big's the ship" thread.

I was suggesting that the reason the bridge was lowered so much with the series modification was that the lift tube was lowered with the dome and the lift must be below the level of the tube ceiling. If you didn't lower the tube so much, you wouldn't have to lower the bridge so much. (The Phase II bridge is lowered into the teardrop much less than the original.)

Then I realized it's not the tube ceiling that's the limiting factor; it's the opening between the dome and the tube, which must be high enough to provide for the alcove ceiling and the lift doors. Raising the tube would do nothing for the dome-tube connection. (The Phase II bridge has higher tubes and also higher and different dome/tube interfaces.)

I'm repeating it here since its lost in 4 rapid-fire pages over there (and it's more on-topic here).

Maybe everyone else had already thought of this (and maybe I was aware of it before and forgot); and maybe everyone had already noticed that the Phase II version is recessed a lot less. But just in case...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

By the time of Phase II, they knew of us obsessive ship lovers who would gleefully pore over each and every detail and howl if something didn't match up, something they could've have anticipated back in '64, so a bit more work was done to match up the interiors and the external shape of the ship.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

If only they'd kept up with that thinking in the later series', such as DS9 and VOY! There were a number of interior/exterior issues with those two series.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Well, Matt Jefferies and Andrew Probert, two designers that were "quite scrupulous" about making interiors fit in exteriors, weren't doing the designs. Of course, even designers best intentions can get overridden by writers/producers/effects-houses, especially under the heat of weekly TV series production schedule.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Agreed. A perfect example of being overriden is where the TMP Rec Deck is concerned. Mr. Probert attended WonderFest '05 and had a seminar in which he expounded on many things, and this was one of them. He realized early on that the RecDeck set wasn't going to fit inside the model as designed by the art producer, so he tried to come up with a compromise drawing that _did_ fit, but was a bit different than originally conceived. He was overriden, tho, so we end up with a RecDeck that doesn't fit inside the Refit.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Ironically, Voyager was really the first time they made extra sure that the bridge and the neighboring rooms actually fit inside the exterior hull. Previous shows did estimates, with varying degrees of accuracy, but Voyager was the first time the sets were designed with an overlay of the exterior hull taken into account.

Now, if only the scripts were gone over as well...


----------



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

Well since the AMT cutaway kit says the bridge faces forward I believe it must face forward. AMT has yet to ever design an inaccurate model kit. :tongue:



There's that reason...


Plus, if it's true that they designed the interior sets before ever deciding how big the ship was it's impossible to say it was fully taken into account.

Not to mention the fact that since the bridge segments were wild they may have well first set it up so that the alcove segment went directly behind the captains chair.

Then realized that that didn't make for a dramatic enough camera angle and moved that segment over.

Whatever production decisions that later require us to think the bridge is cockeyed, I've seen no evidence that it was ever intended to be that way originally.

The decision, such as placing the turbolift alcove over the captain's shoulder for dramatic effect, may well have been taken out of Jefferies hands by the filming directors just as Griffworks points out Probert's objections about the TMP Rec Dec were.

We speak as if Jefferies was in charge of all of these decisions when in fact he wasn't. No matter how we all wish he had been we need to recognize that fact.

Whatever the reasons for the much much much much much later explanations as to why the bridge needs to be cockeyed to fit...

The most compelling reason that I personally don't believe the bridge was ever designed by Jefferies to face sidesaddle is because

- there is no other way to say it - it's a stupid pointless design decision.

It's stupid to design a ship whose bridge is cocked to one side by 36 degrees.

And Jefferies didn't do stupid designs.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Voyager was not a physical model. It was the first ST show with computer models for the main ship. Therefore it was easy to design the interiors to fit using the computer model as a overlay guide. 

The TOS Enterprise bridge set's wild section comment above makes sense to me. I've often wondered if the original design have the elevator section behind the captain. Yet having it off center is not a stupid desgn. Having everything symetrical is boring to look at. When I make up my own designs, I often make them non-symetrical for the reason and it looks more interesting. My influence is a combination of my favorites, from Star Trek to 2001 a space odyssey. I love how in 2001 some of the sets are done at gravity defying angles that messes with human perception of what is expected as normal. That makes it interesting and makes you think outside the box or norm.


----------



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

I maybe wasn't as clear as I should have been.

Sorry about that.

I didn't mean to suggest that having the exterior tube off center would have been dumb, or that placing the elevator off to the side was dumb.

I just think the idea that Jefferies designed the interior of the ship so that the bridge inside the "real" ship would be riding sidesaddle.

That just seems dumb to me.

I think it's more likely that production considerations caused the problem.

I don't believe Jefferies intended to design the ship so that the bridge didn't face forward inside the interior.

I believe that whole idea was a result of production considerations and not Jefferies' intent.

There is zero advantage of building a starship so that it's bridge rides side saddle.
The whole idea fails not just the "giggle test" as someone else put it but the "ridiculous" test as well.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Uh, Steve,
then do you mind telling me what that big Voyager sized MODEL was that they sold at the Christies auction?

I think you meant to say that Enterprise was the first series where there was no physical model of the the title ship


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

and the reason for the offset turbo lift was purely dramatic. You could with one camera setup show the captain's chair and the lift and keep the captain in profile.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

and another thing. We tend to forget that this was a TV show made in the 1960's. Heck, they didn't even finish building the ship model, cuz that side wouldn't show.

Televison ( and the the viewers thereof) were different beasts back then.

I can't think of any series made at that time where the producers made a serious effort to match the interiors of their sets with the exteriors. 

did anybody care that Dodge City's street didn't match the sets? That the addams Family or Bewitched or I dream of Jeanie or My Favorite Martian's sets didn't match the houses that were shown in the exteriors?

Don't get me started on the Jupiter 2 or the Seaview 

Its a testament to the quality of Trek that we care at all.

and I think it changed the way that shows are made now. Now the fans demand that level of verismilitude. Now (especially in trek) every bolt has to be in the "right" place.

go easy guys, they were just doing their jobs
:wave:


----------



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

Lou Dalmaso said:


> and the reason for the offset turbo lift was purely dramatic. You could with one camera setup show the captain's chair and the lift and keep the captain in profile.


That's what I've heard from several sources online. 

But I've decided not to quote online sources as proof of anything, even people with extremely well known monickers. Maybe people like Rick Sternbach or others who use their own names and have openly made a statement somewhere. But since I have never personally found someone in a direct position to know say it I have refrained from stating it as fact, just as a probable explanation.


----------



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

BTWay, they did use a ton of CGI Voyager modeling and effects, especially after season three I believe.

There's been a lot of net coverage of those CGI Voyager effects, so I see someone who didn't follow Voyager closely when it was in production not knowing a physical model was constructed too.

I do believe they created CGI models from the beginning of Voyager if my frail mind remembers correctly, even though they apparently didn't feel comfortable with the level of technology then to use it extensively.

I'm sure having even a (by screen-level) crude CGI model helped the designers nail the interiors versus the exteriors rather well. While the art directors and the CGI people didn't have the exact same job, I'm sure they worked together.


----------



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

Lou Dalmaso said:


> and another thing. We tend to forget that this was a TV show made in the 1960's. Hell, they didn't even finish building the ship model, cuz that side wouldn't show.
> 
> Televison ( and the the viewers thereof) were different beasts back then.
> 
> ...


I agree.

I believe Jefferies made a tremendous effort to match them, and most probably did.

Likely the turbolift issue problem was caused by some other factor like the filming director's request.

We'll never know for sure what caused the issue though.

The whole idea that Jefferies purposely designed a starship with a bridge that rides side saddle is what seems unbelievable to me.

The guy was too smart to have done something lame like that.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The decision, such as placing the turbolift alcove over the captain's shoulder for dramatic effect, may well have been taken out of Jefferies hands by the filming directors just as Griffworks points out Probert's objections about the TMP Rec Dec were.
> 
> We speak as if Jefferies was in charge of all of these decisions when in fact he wasn't. No matter how we all wish he had been we need to recognize that fact.
> 
> ...


Agreed, we can't know whether it was Jefferies decision or someone else to put the lift where it was.

What we do know is that Jefferies was fully aware of it during production of the show. We know this because he lowered the bridge partway into deck 2 (in his cross-section seen in TMOST) so that the lift entry would clear the opening between the bridge dome and the lift tube. We also know the lift tube visible on the model corresponds to the lift on the bridge set. Measurements are conclusive on this. The evidence has been posted time and again in multiple places. Some refuse to believe them, though. There's simply no point debating with such people. MGagen posted an appropriate old saying some years back: "It's no use trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes _your_ time and annoys the pig."

Edit: Chuck, in case it came across that way, I'm not saying _you_ are one of those who refuse to believe the clear evidence before them.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Voyager was not a physical model. It was the first ST show with computer models for the main ship. Therefore it was easy to design the interiors to fit using the computer model as a overlay guide.


I do believe there were both physical and cgi models from the beginning.



> The TOS Enterprise bridge set's wild section comment above makes sense to me. I've often wondered if the original design have the elevator section behind the captain.


Only some of the stations were wild originally; this may have precluded the existance of a configuration with the lift directly behind the captain. (I like the lift-directly-behind-captain theory very much, but there's no evidence that it was the original plan. There is some evidence to suggest that even if it was that it was changed before construction.)



> Yet having it off center is not a stupid desgn.


Quite right. It's an _unexpected_ design for most people.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> and another thing. We tend to forget that this was a TV show made in the 1960's.


As opposed to today's TV that is so much better? 




> Its a testament to the quality of Trek that we care at all.


And that so many things _are_ consistent and _do_ make sense!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The original bridge set used in the pilots was a big heavy, creaky, wooden monstrosity that only had two or three wild section, on the captain's right. The turbolift was in its traditional location from the beginning.

Later, when the show was picked up by NBC and the production moved from Culver City to the Gower Street facility (now the western half of Paramount Studios), fiberglass castings were made of the stations (much lighter, and thus much less creaky), and all the stations were made wild. You will note that the red handrail surrounding the helm area is solid in the pilots, but had noticeable seams in the regular episodes.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Sorry I may not be 100% correct about there not being a physical Voyager model. I remember seeing official computer graphics of Voyager which I downloaded. Maybe they used both? I know that the Enterprise series was all CGI. Maybe I got the two shows confused. I have to admit that I didn't follow that show that closely. I liked the effects and design but the story line reminded me too much of a lost in space redo too much to keep my interest. I feel stupid for forgetting there was a physical model too. I just watched that Christies auction recently on TV and saw the Voyager model. I must had read more about the extensive CGI and forgot when I posted about it.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Captain April: That's what I remembered. Thanks for the nice description. I especially found "big heavy, creaky, wooden monstrosity" enjoyable!


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Sorry I may not be 100% correct about there not being a physical Voyager model. I remember seeing official computer graphics of Voyager which I downloaded. Maybe they used both? I know that the Enterprise series was all CGI. Maybe I got the two shows confused.


IIRR, they did use both from the beginning. I believe the opening title sequence shows both the CGI and the physical model. I don't think they used the physical model much, though, especially as the series progressed.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I think it's as Chuck said on the previous page - they used mostly a physical model up to around Season 3 when they switched over to a CGI model exclusively.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ Ah, thanks. I must have skimmed over that part. (I'm pretty sure I read that they did have the CGI one from the start, too, though. (Which is also what Chuck says.))


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The key in determining which model is being used, physical or CGI, is to see of there are lights in the nacelle pylons. The mechanism to raise and lower the nacelles precluded any lighting, so if they're dark, it's the model, if it's lit, it's CGI.


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> Agreed, we can't know whether it was Jefferies decision or someone else to put the lift where it was.
> 
> What we do know is that Jefferies was fully aware of it during production of the show. We know this because he lowered the bridge partway into deck 2 (in his cross-section seen in TMOST) so that the lift entry would clear the opening between the bridge dome and the lift tube.
> 
> ...


I would not assume you were saying that.

I don't see any info I disagree with in your statement.

I'm not saying Jefferies might not have known about the changes even before the sets were constructed.


I simply don't think the bridge was ever originally designed to sit cock-eyed.
Why it ended up that way in order to make it fit we may never know.

I'm_ inclined to think_ it was because of filming demands, as has been stated elsewhere. Even if the alcove was originally built in that position as Captain April says doesn't mean the filming director didn't demand it built that way for dramatic effect.

I just can't state it as fact as I have never read anyone directly connected with the show say that firsthand.

I guess the biggest argument for me that it was done that way due to production demands is that someone designing a ship to be built from scratch wouldn't build it cockeyed like that.

It just doesn't make sense. And I think way too much of Jefferies to believe he designed it that way.

Maybe later he had to drop the bridge in the cross section in order to cover for the way he was forced to position everything.

The fact that he even bothered to do that to me shows a man dedicated to getting things designed as believably as possible, even when few other then himself might have cared at the time.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Then if we were to model the TOS Enterprise the way it was most likey originally intended by MJ, (and not the probable layout change by the set filming director) do we just go with the elevator section swapping positions with the communications station and be done with it?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

You can, but I won't be going with that.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I see what you are saying. I'm not uncomfortable with a off center bridge orientation. It would be different if they had a viewport window instead of a viewscreen. With a viewscreen anywhere around the bridge, to the crew that represents forward or any other view they call up on the display. It wouldn't be disorienting to the command crew. It just doesn't matter. The ship will still go where they want it to go even if they faced backwards! I just can't go with an elevator not in line with the external elevator nub. It doesn't matter if the model or bridge set was built first to me. I believe MJ meant the elevator to be located in the nub on the centerline of the ship. That's just my personal feeling and I won't force it on anyone that believes otherwise. Nothing we discuss here will become canon. It will forever be open to interpretation and differences of opinion. Just make it whatever seems logical and works for you.


----------



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

You could just lower the bridge enough into the B deck that it fits facing forward.

If one's creating their own model, it would totally be up to them.

I've heard the viewscreen argument before, to me it still doesn't answer the question as to why the bridge would be offset. 

Plus there are problems with the viewscreen arguments, the fact that it doesn't answer the question why aside. 

It assumes that there are never volatile flight conditions or problems with inertia.

There are many possible conditions in atmosphere flight or flight near an object with an extremely strong gravitational pull; or actually any situation in which turbulence was applied to the ship - that would disorient a "side-saddle" riding helmsman more then a bridge that was centered.

A disoriented helmsman could quickly become an issue.

We've already seen several examples where, inertial dampers aside, the ship is still shown to experience the very real forces of inertia as the bridge rocks and rolls back and forth. During turbulent conditions, it would take far less inertia then that to cause a much more confusing, disorienting effect on a helmsman trying to pilot the ship forward while he was being rocked in a manner that doesn't match the direction the bridge is facing.

But again, if one's creating their own model, it would totally be up to them.

I forget whose it was, but I saw one design that had the bridge lowered and centered, the turboshaft elevator came out of the tube and slid to the side a few feet when it reached the level of the bridge, and the turboshaft was actually forward a bit on the interior, with access to an emergency ladder at the aft part of what's now considered to be the exterior tube.

I thought that was a neat design. I don't know how one got access to the emergency ladder, or even if it was noted in the design, but it solved a ton of different issues all at once.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

How's this for an explanation?

It has since been established (if not on-screen, then in supplementary material) that the bridge is a modular unit that can easily be swapped out depending on the mission. This not only explains what the bridge is at the top of the ship (rather than a more protected location near the center) but also why the same class of ship often had radically different bridges. (Or in the case of the later movies, why even the same ship had different bridges.)

The early Constitution class ships were built with the turbo shaft on the center line of the ship. Soon after the Enterprise was constructed, for some reason the design was changed so the shaft was moved to the left. During one of the Enterprise's upgrades (probably when Pike took over from Captain April) the new, updated Bridge unit was installed. They were faced with the choice of either completely replacing the the turboshaft or rotating the bridge counterclockwise. They chose the more practical and cost-effective option.

As for the real-world, practical reason for the off center doors, I think it is an obvious dramatic neccessity. Whenever someone walks onto the bridge, you are going to have the Captain turn to look at them. It's better if he can simply look over his left shoulder, rather than twist completely around. This is also probably why they moved Spock's station between THE MOTION PICTURE and THE WRATH OF KAHN.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

If they (Starfleet) were so concerned with "intertial forces", they would have had crew seats which were not only attached firmly to the deck, they would also have featured restraint harnesses! Clearly the fleet architects did not consider inertial forces a concern, in any flight regime.

So there.

Hee hee!


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> If they (Starfleet) were so concerned with "intertial forces", they would have had crew seats which were not only attached firmly to the deck, they would also have featured restraint harnesses! Clearly the fleet architects did not consider inertial forces a concern, in any flight regime.
> 
> So there.
> 
> Hee hee!


Ya got me there! :lol:



One of my favorite moments during the Enterprise series was when Trip had secretly been working on a replacement captain's chair which had, of all things - a seatbelt!

They decided it was a bad idea, which suggested to me they had made a pivotal decision in Starfleet engineering.

Apparently one that would take centuries to overcome. It's such a complicated device, the seatbelt. :lol:

Maybe the Enterprise J has both seatbelts *and *fuses. 

That would be a real leap forward!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

To be offset or not to be. My thoughts: 

Maybe a reason to be offset is that is is more aesthetically pleasing than a symetrical mirror image layout? That would look rather boring. From the crews perspective, once they walk onto the bridge you are seeing it from an angle anyway. But your mind would immediately lock on and reference the viewscreen as the "front of the bridge" and would have no idea where true north (front of the ship) was in effect. 

Like I've said think what you want it to be for yourself. This subject gets people so passionate either way that I really think its more a psychological issue than a practical design issue. 

The crew falling out of their chairs or rocking back and forth during an attack is a bad excuse. If anything that was for dramatic effect only and sort of stupid for reasons above like the chairs not being bolted down and having no seatbelts for example. If anything, there should have just been heavy vibration or turbulence but that wouldn't have looked as dramatic for the actors to merely shake in their seats. Plus most effects of inertia and external gravity are negated by 23rd century starship technology anyway. If not they would be either crushed are floating about.

To me a command bridge just has to be functional to operate the ship. Its about functionality, not which way your control instruments face in orientation to the ships centerline. Heck, most bridge personnel sit cockeyed relative to each other no matter which way the bridge actually points! 

Unless they have actual windows to give them an exterior point of reference, the bridge doesn't have to point straight ahead at all. Instead on the bridge they use digital viewscreens as their sole point of reference to the outside universe. I think having an offset bridge (without windows to disorient and confuse the crew) is a clever and bold thing to do.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ I can't remember who it was, but someone involved in the production was said to have been asked whey they didn't have seatbelts to which he replied "then people wouldn't fall out of them" or somesuch. I really liked that they had the equivalent of seatbelts in ST:TMP. Too bad they forgot to use them in the subsequent films.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

uss_columbia said:


> ^ I can't remember who it was, but someone involved in the production was said to have been asked whey they didn't have seatbelts to which he replied "then people wouldn't fall out of them" or somesuch. I really liked that they had the equivalent of seatbelts in ST:TMP. Too bad they forgot to use them in the subsequent films.


On the 25th + 1 day anniversary of TWOK, I must point out that Saavik used hers in the Kobayashi Maru. One of those "kinda makes sense" ideas like the radiation suits in engineering. (The shield in the transporter room was a bit much.)

I have yet to see anyone present me with a plausible forward facing TOS bridge. But then it would be the only bridge angled sideways as such in all the Trek history. *sigh*


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I have to agree about the shield in the transporter. Odd that the orbital station trasporter didn't need one. Maybe it was more for decontamination / containment. The Enterprise would expect to beam strange things from strange places, whereas the orbital facility only beams "clean" people from Earth facilities.

Perhaps Saavik using hers is why she's the only one on the bridge that wasn't killed.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Wasn't every non-Enterprise starship depicted in TOS shown also with an angled bridge? I'm thinking the M7 computer war games episode ánd others. Of course they reused the same bridge set but still.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I don't think we saw closeups of the outside of the bridge areas of the other ships in the fleet in Ultimate Computer. Maybe some of those ships wore their lift tubes 35.5 degrees onto the port side.


----------



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

wpthomas said:


> On the 25th + 1 day anniversary of TWOK, I must point out that Saavik used hers in the Kobayashi Maru. One of those "kinda makes sense" ideas like the radiation suits in engineering. (The shield in the transporter room was a bit much.)
> 
> I have yet to see anyone present me with a plausible forward facing TOS bridge. But then it would be the only bridge angled sideways as such in all the Trek history. *sigh*


I realize that things such as inertial dampers, etc, can be used to try and explain away the bridge not facing the centerline.

However I would argue that even the best of technologies can be either expected to fail or not work perfectly some of the time.

Given that probably, why do it?

Also, even if one could argue that there would be technology to make them feel none of the effects of being "off-balance" with the centerline of the ship.

Let's assume that is 100% possible and it would work at all times in all situations. Still it doesn't answer the question why do it?

To me the most likely answer is that something forced them to have to define the bridge as sitting sideways at some point due to production demands.

That makes more sense to me then they just decided to do it just to do it.

But unfortunately we'll never know for sure.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I realize that things such as inertial dampers, etc, can be used to try and explain away the bridge not facing the centerline.
> 
> ...
> 
> To me the most likely answer is that something forced them to have to define the bridge as sitting sideways at some point due to production demands.


I think when they screwed the new bridge on between _The Cage_ and _Where No Man Has Gone Before_ they didn't get the threads lined up right and the bridge was off center by the time they got it tightened down.

---------------


----------



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

Steve Mavronis said:


> The crew falling out of their chairs or rocking back and forth during an attack is a bad excuse. If anything that was for dramatic effect only and sort of stupid for reasons above like the chairs not being bolted down and having no seatbelts for example. If anything, there should have just been heavy vibration or turbulence but that wouldn't have looked as dramatic for the actors to merely shake in their seats. Plus most effects of inertia and external gravity are negated by 23rd century starship technology anyway. If not they would be either crushed are floating about.


Not really.

While they might have been a little melodramatic with the tiltling and the non-bolted down and non-seatbelted chairs, it's not unreasonable for a ship to rock suddenly when say, struck by a couple of photo torpedoes or other such weapon.


Let's not forget they have gravity, artificially created or not.

You can't have gravity and not have inertia, 23rd century or not.

I agree the directors may have gone over the top by not using bolted chairs and belts etc...

Plus it would have been good if someone had caught the scene where Uhura falls in a totally different direction then everybody else. :lol:

But I wouldn't think it's fair to totally dismiss everything seen onscreen that indicates they could still feel the effects of inertia.

Inertial dampeners, as they called them, I'm sure they had. But there is a reason they called them dampeners and not eliminators.

Can't have gravity and no inertia.

Plus we saw plenty of evidence of the inertia onscreen. Even if a good deal of it was a bit melodramatic.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Why not do it? Some ask why. I ask why not.

All I'm saying is the elevator is the answer. It is most efficient to descend in the straight line to the lower decks of the primary hull without zig-zagging back and forth along the way, unless it has to travel around a deck for a long enough distance to make it worthwhile to get to the other side of the ship. So it is also logical that it be on the centerline under the external nub that MJ put there for it. The rest must fall into place from there. We can't escape that it is off center relative to the viewscreen. But there is no front window to confront or make everything line up around it. Plus the chairs all swivel. If it was so important to remain facing forward or get whiplash, they wouldn't even have swivel chairs! Since that doesn't concern them (unless the director yells "lean left - tumble right") it isn't a big deal if the bridge is also offset in its design. It still looks cool. 

What does it hurt to be that way? After all it is still functional enough for them. Nothing hurts really, other than symbolic denial that the Earth isn't flat and curves away from us.

As far as their technology potentially failing at times, they forgot the basics to keep chairs from tipping over! Even if they were bolted down they aren't designed for the stresses encountered in such situations. Obviously they are masters over natural forces such as laws of motion, inertia, and acceleration.

[edit] Just reading the above post about gravity and inertia after I wrote this. They have artificial gravity. I think that technology could also be applied to more than just the down direction to correct for sideways momemtum. Hard to be a physics professor about it since a lot of the stuff in Trek is imaginative sci fi. We can talk about warp drive, folding space to affect the time needed to travel across the galaxy but none of us can create warp drive technology for real in the 21st century - at least not for a little while yet in the Star Trek timeline. Now how about a nice game of Fizzbin?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

scotthm said:


> I think when they screwed the new bridge on between _The Cage_ and _Where No Man Has Gone Before_ they didn't get the threads lined up right and the bridge was off center by the time they got it tightened down.


:lol:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> You can't have gravity and not have inertia, 23rd century or not.
> ...
> Can't have gravity and no inertia.


Umm, you don't need gravity to have inertia. In any case, I don't see how the orientation of the bridge is important relative to inertia. The accelerations can come from any direction "when say, struck by a couple of photo torpedoes or other such weapon." And as was pointed out before, it's only three people on the bridge that face the viewscreen.


----------



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

uss_columbia said:


> Umm, you don't need gravity to have inertia. In any case, I don't see how the orientation of the bridge is important relative to inertia. The accelerations can come from any direction "when say, struck by a couple of photo torpedoes or other such weapon." And as was pointed out before, it's only three people on the bridge that face the viewscreen.


"Umm..." I'm glad all the points you have made mine finally agree with all the points I was making. 

We seem to be in full agreement.

No you don't need gravity to have inertia. But that statement has nothing to do with, nor changes the fact that if you have gravity on the ship(which they do) you do have inertia.

That's why they have inertial dampeners.

In some situations the acceleration will come from one direction, sometimes from multiple directions, but the ship's inertial dampers and correction systems will still have one simple objective:

to right the ship, move it back to the proper postion for the traveling instructions it is being given by the helmsman.

And yes, three people do indeed face the viewscreen. 
You are 100% correct about that.

One of them is the helmsman.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

OK, this horse is dead and beaten. It's also getting to the point where people are arguing over the definition of the word "is". As such, it's locked.


----------

