# Super weird realization about the T.O.S. Enterprise bridge



## Spidey7 (Jun 5, 2008)

I was checking out a really neat build of the T.O.S. Enterprise on eBay when I came to a surprising realization. This model has a completed bridge that can be seen through the upper dome, and I discovered that the only way for the bridge to sit correctly within the hull and line up with the "turbolift" shaft is for everything on the bridge to be cocked at a 30 degree angle. I don't know why that trips me out so much, but it just seems WRONG! Lol

Since I was a kid, I've always thought of the forward view-screen and the captain's chair as facing directly out of the nose of the ship. After all of these years to suddenly realize that as the Enterprise is majestically sailing forward through space, everyone on the bridge is actually riding sideways, just seems BIZARRE! Every time Kirk has faced the view-screen and stared down a cranky alien race, he's actually been looking sideways out of the ship!

Am I the only one that never realized this? Does it bother anyone else? It's the same feeling I got when I found out that there weren't ever really any "yellow" command shirts, they were all actually green. It just feels odd when you realize that you've been wrong for all these years over something you took for granted. Lol

Green line is how I thought the bridge faced.

Red line is how it actually is!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Yourrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....................new here...............aren't you?!


----------



## Bernard Guignar (Sep 9, 2006)

oh oh here we go again


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Since the TOS Enterprise uses a view screen and not a forward window it doesn't matter to the crew. With the ship's inertial dampers active they wouldn't be the wiser. I like it though like an optical illusion. Another sci fi classic that plays tricks with perspective is 2001: A Space Odyssey. On the Discovery bridge, the pilots basically have to look upwards at quite an angle from their seated positions to see forward out the cockpit windows!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

This has been heavily discussed on this forum. The bridge will be modeled to face forward or be offset depending on your choice. In other forums this is discussed as to why they did this.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

RSN said:


> Yourrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....................new here...............aren't you?!


Hah! Laugh of the day!


----------



## Spidey7 (Jun 5, 2008)

Oooops, lol. I was so excited by my discovery that I just rushed to share. 

I did do a search but didn't see any other threads on it. Just chalk it up to the enthusiasm of a new discovery.


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Spidey7 said:


> I did do a search but didn't see any other threads on it. Just chalk it up to the enthusiasm of a new discovery.


All righty then, we'll do just that! 

hal9001-


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Spidey7 said:


> Oooops, lol. I was so excited by my discovery that I just rushed to share.
> 
> I did do a search but didn't see any other threads on it. Just chalk it up to the enthusiasm of a new discovery.


Happens to everyone the first time..............try thinking about baseball next time!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

I'm amazed... the entire exchange without a single cry of "JIHAAAAAAAAADDD!!!" 

Seriously, it's remarkable how obvious this is once you start to look at things in 3D.

For the OP... the bridge set was originally planned to be built all in a line. The director of photography, and likely the actors as well, found that having the entrance to the bridge directly behind the actors made for poor photographic composition, and was also more than a little bit unsettling for the actors (how do YOU feel when someone enters a room directly behind you?).

My own preferred "in universe" explanation is based entirely on that second bit... many commanders didn't like having to turn entirely around to see who just came in (and thus having to lose their attention to what's going on with the helm and main viewer). So someone... who knows, maybe it was Captain Pike... decided to have the various computer consoles making up the bridge re-arranged a bit. Since everything, including the main viewer, is just a computer, and since the inertial movement of the ship is supposed to be entirely masked to the crew (otherwise, the first time you hit full impulse, you'd turn the entire crew into a thin red film on the rear wall of whatever compartment they were in!)... it's not like you'd be able to "steer by feel."

In my own explanation, any commander can, with a short period of downtime, have the bridge re-arranged into any configuration he/she/it wants. The only things that are "fixed" are the location of the indented region in the middle, and the location of the lift tube. Everything else can be rearranged to taste. (They actually played a bit with this, in ST-II... remember, the Reliant had a single lift tube, aft and at the centerline, aligned with the viewscreen.)

Other people disagree, and come up with a variety of other ways of putting things together... usually involving the turbolift being a TARDIS, or ignoring the scale of the ship, or shifting the bridge downwards out of the dome... none of which seem reasonable to me, personally.

That said, this is one of two topics which has been raging among Trek fans since the series was first on the air, it seems. (The other topic is "where is Main Engineering?" and as an addition to that, "where is the power generated?")

Both of these are ones that, in my opinion, are pretty fruitless to discuss... because the people on either side have already made up their respective minds, and are totally inflexible on the topic.

It's occasionally something we all get dragged into, but I've yet to see anyone shift, even a hair's breadth, from their original position in any of the discussions.

FYI, MGagen determined the exact angles of the various bridge segments, and the exact offset of the lift versus the main viewer. If you want to find commentary on this, and can't find it otherwise, look up his profile and look up some of his posts.


----------



## Spidey7 (Jun 5, 2008)

Thanks CLBrown! That's really cool information to know. I appreciate you posting it for me. To be honest, now that I've posted this, I'm a little embarrassed that I JUST noticed this "bridge issue", when everyone else has been aware of it for a long time.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Spidey7 said:


> Thanks CLBrown! That's really cool information to know. I appreciate you posting it for me. To be honest, now that I've posted this, I'm a little embarrassed that I JUST noticed this "bridge issue", when everyone else has been aware of it for a long time.


Don't take it personally, we have just been around the ring a few times on this one here and we are a bit "Punch Drunk" about it.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Opus Penguin said:


> This has been heavily discussed on this forum. _*The bridge will be modeled to face forward or be offset depending on your choice.*_ In other forums this is discussed as to why they did this.


You mean Round 2 1/350 scale? That's just cool of them to leave an option. 

I think I realized this back on my second or third build in my teens. I called my friend to tell him. He was a major ST fan, too. But not a model builder. I think you have to see and feel the model, before the "Bridge Epiphany" hits you. 

Welcome, Spidey7!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Ya know, just to throw it out there, it's always been one of those 'assumed' things that the tube on the aft exterior of the bridge MUST be the turbolift shaft. Why? It can't be something else like an external hardpoint for fluid/gas passover? 

Yes of course having it be the lift shaft is the most simple answer. Then again, Think of the decades where people assumed that the trigger on a hand phaser was on top, right under that grid thing.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

The old blueprints showed this nearly 40 years ago.


----------



## Spidey7 (Jun 5, 2008)

Steve H said:


> Think of the decades where people assumed that the trigger on a hand phaser was on top, right under that grid thing.



You mean it's NOT?!?! Dear GOD, Make the madness STOP!!!! :tongue:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Spidey7 said:


> You mean it's NOT?!?! Dear GOD, Make the madness STOP!!!! :tongue:


"Tell him about the Twinkie!"


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I wanted the Polar Lights bridge to actually have the turbo car sticking off the side and having it serve as a locater pin that tucks into the exterior tube. You could still make the bridge face forward, but you'd have to snip the turbocar off the piece -- a tacit admission that the forward orientation is not really possible...

Alas, they dodged the issue.

M.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Spidey7 said:


> Thanks CLBrown! That's really cool information to know. I appreciate you posting it for me. To be honest, now that I've posted this, I'm a little embarrassed that I JUST noticed this "bridge issue", when everyone else has been aware of it for a long time.


Since this is "new" to you, I thought I'd post (as a thumbnail... click it to see the full-size image) something I've posted before, on this issue... my 3D work on the bridge portion of the ship (thumbnailed rather than full-size so as to not annoy those who've seen this before too badly).

I did make a small tweak to this area... I increased the height of the lift tube a bit. This was something driven by my efforts to make the entire interior of the ship fit into the exterior of the ship and line up properly. I slightly tweaked a few window vertical locations... not even noticably, I think... and I altered the bridge lift tube height. But otherwise, the ship is as-seen on-screen. (I plan to modify my R2 kit to match my 3D stuff here, by the way.)



I'm absolutely not the only person to ever go through this exercise... some in 2D, some in 3D... but those who go through the exercise in 3D always, it seems, come to the same conclusion.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> The old blueprints showed this nearly 40 years ago.


I remember that! Cool Paul!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

MGagen said:


> Alas, they dodged the issue.


That was a particular can of worms they preferred not to open.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

As far as the producers, writers, designers, and anyone else actually connected with the show was concerned, the bridge faced forward, geometry be damned to the lowest depths of hell. The sad fact is, regardless of the fact that Star Trek went well above and beyond the call of duty in thinking a lot of this stuff through, there were some sniggling details that either slipped through, or weren't deemed important enough to spend any more time on than necessary. 

How well the bridge set matched up with the effects model clear across town was one of those details. The fact that very few of the production staff ever even SAW the big model could account for the long running misconception about the model being fourteen feet long (it's actually a little over eleven feet long).

There are ways to reconcile a forward facing bridge with the model, but it takes a little squinting, some shifting around of the internal arrangement (as well as some long standing preconceptions) and recognizing that we're dealing with a very large handmade model with more than a few irregularities.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Steve H said:


> Ya know, just to throw it out there, it's always been one of those 'assumed' things that the tube on the aft exterior of the bridge MUST be the turbolift shaft. Why? It can't be something else like an external hardpoint for fluid/gas passover?
> 
> Yes of course having it be the lift shaft is the most simple answer. Then again, Think of the decades where people assumed that the trigger on a hand phaser was on top, right under that grid thing.


That's the spirit! :thumbsup: Personally, I prefer to think of it as the subspace radio transceiver array.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I gotta say I like and am quite impressed how *CLBrown* managed to make everything fit together.

*CL*, have you ever down a full-up cross section of the TOS _E_ like *Aridas* and *CRA* and others have done? I'd love to see it.

Note, one of these days I'd really like to tackle the flight deck and hangar facilities to accommodate my 26ft. TOS and TAS shuttle craft. Ahh, someday...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It's 36°, ain't it?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John P said:


> It's 36°, ain't it?


Picky, picky, picky...


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Don't feel bad, yours is the first I've seen with the cool neon Christmas-colored hand-drawn lines on it!

Tib


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

Yeah, there are a lot of "purists" who support the idea of building their Enterprise model with the bridge turned 30 degrees. While it may make sense from a physical standpoint, I think this is one area where I and a lot of other model builders will take artistic license and have our bridges facing forward. Personally, I think the 30 degree angle looks absolutely ridiculous, even if the turbolift doesn't line up.

In the end we're building a model of a fictional ship from a TV show that was made almost 50 years ago, so I try not to take it too seriously.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

GSaum said:


> In the end we're building a model of a fictional ship from a TV show that was made almost 50 years ago, so I try not to take it too seriously.


Exactly. It's all in the name of entertainment.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

GSaum said:


> In the end we're building a model of a fictional ship from a TV show that was made almost 50 years ago, so I try not to take it too seriously.


:freak: What? _*WHAT???*_

To quote Mythbusters: _"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"_


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

GSaum said:


> Yeah, there are a lot of "purists" who support the idea of building their Enterprise model with the bridge turned 30 degrees. While it may make sense from a physical standpoint, I think this is one area where I and a lot of other model builders will take artistic license and have our bridges facing forward. Personally, I think the 30 degree angle looks absolutely ridiculous, even if the turbolift doesn't line up.
> 
> In the end we're building a model of a fictional ship from a TV show that was made almost 50 years ago, so I try not to take it too seriously.


Crazy talk like that can get a man shot in these here parts young fella. I'd be careful if'in I wuz you.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

John P said:


> It's 36°, ain't it?


No, it's six degrees of Kevin Bacon.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

GSaum said:


> In the end we're building a model of a fictional ship from a TV show that was made almost 50 years ago, so I try not to take it too seriously.


While this is an admirable stance, it doesn't ring quite true because you preceded it with this...


GSaum said:


> Yeah, there are a lot of "purists" who support the idea of building their Enterprise model with the bridge turned 30 degrees. While it may make sense from a physical standpoint, I think this is one area where I and a lot of other model builders will take artistic license and have our bridges facing forward. Personally, I think the 30 degree angle looks absolutely ridiculous, even if the turbolift doesn't line up.


Now someone truly _trying not to take it too seriously_ might have said something like this...


Shaw said:


> .​


... or general words to that effect.

We are, after all, here because we are artistic enough to build/draw/etc. the Enterprise anyway we want. Build it the way you want and don't worry about what others think (or waste time pushing your own opinions). If people like your work enough, they'll share in your vision of the Enterprise, if not, they are free to build their own or follow someone else's version. 

This isn't a popularity contest where if you can get a majority of people to agree with you then your view wins. Nor does the use of pejoratives (like _"purists"_) win any points.

I think a better use of our time would be to go back to our respective projects or provide support and encouragement for others whose projects we might be following if we are between projects. 




Just a thought.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

Shaw said:


> While this is an admirable stance, it doesn't ring quite true because you preceded it with this...
> 
> Now someone truly _trying not to take it too seriously_ might have said something like this...
> 
> ...


This is exactly why I almost didn't even reply to the OP. One can't state their opinion without someone else being so upset over it that they respond with some passive-aggressive comeback and then white-wash it with some comment about how to "better use our time".

The entire point of my post was simply to say that there are those who will choose to build it angled 30 degrees, and there will be those who won't. Yes, I referred to those who would as "purists" and I think that is perfectly accurate.

Lastly, if you disagree with me, then just come out and say it, but please don't patronize me. 

Just a thought.


----------



## wayvryder (Apr 11, 2010)

RSN said:


> Yourrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....................new here...............aren't you?!


This was the perfect reply!!!!!!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

"Purist" is a pejorative term? I thought it was rather neutral.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

GSaum said:


> This is exactly why I almost didn't even reply to the OP. One can't state their opinion without someone else being so upset over it that they respond with some passive-aggressive comeback and then white-wash it with some comment about how to "better use our time".


I don't think _almost_ counts in this case. 

But you are entitled to your opinions as much as the next person... I'd just suggest not _white-wash_ing it by pretending that you're not going to take it too seriously. And your opinion (the same or different than mine on this subject) wasn't the point of my post... that you are actually taking this too seriously was my point. 

After all, your opinion on the subject means less to me than, say, *Captain April*'s... but again, I wasn't addressing _your opinion_.

I mean you could have just said _I like it in _____ direction_ and your opinion would have been known to all without having to add commentary about those who take a different view. But we all know that this subject never stays polite, so why even bother adding in an opinion?

You said it yourself..._In the end we're building a model of a fictional ship from a TV show that was made almost 50 years ago, so try not to take it too seriously_. :thumbsup:


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

Oh, for godssakes!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

*OMG! this whole time I thought the bridge faced forward until a turbolift car arrived at which point the bridge rotated 36 degrees to the left! 
Man was I offbase or what???*


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> I gotta say I like and am quite impressed how *CLBrown* managed to make everything fit together.
> 
> *CL*, have you ever down a full-up cross section of the TOS _E_ like *Aridas* and *CRA* and others have done? I'd love to see it.
> 
> Note, one of these days I'd really like to tackle the flight deck and hangar facilities to accommodate my 26ft. TOS and TAS shuttle craft. Ahh, someday...


Well, to be perfectly blunt, after the last batch of annoyance over at TrekBBS, I sort of put this away for a while, and moved on to other, different "hobby" activities... including working on some physical models.

I'm certainly going to finish fully populating the interior of my Enterprise someday... I have most of the arrangement worked out in my head already. And I've even created the "drawing views" for my "complete deck plans" drawing set, though of course they're not fully populated, since they're just "slices" of the model.

My plan is to take those, export them as DXF files, import those into CorelDraw, and create some "symbols" for various furniture items, etc, to populate the interior. I'm not going to build the details (in 3D) for every room in the ship, only those visible through windows. The "non-visible" rooms will just be unpopulated walls, without beds, tables, chairs, desks, sickbay or lab equipment, etc, etc. I'd actually love to create the whole ship in realistic detail, but it's still going to be a few years before this sort of thing becomes practical for "consumer-level" computers. Fortunately, the software I'm using has a very consistent "upgrade path" so I'm sure that in a few years, when I have hardware and software up to the task, I can put every tiny little detail in there - wall detail panels, intercom panels, red-alert lights, you name it. It'll increase the model size by a factor of about 10X, though, and I'm pretty aware, at this point, of the limitations of model size... (remember, until my current computer rebuild, I couldn't even finish the warp nacelle internal construction!).

I can send you the PDF of my current drawing state, though, if you're interested. Its a sizable file, and I'm not going to "post" it anywhere, just yet... but I'd be happy to share it with you and get some direct feedback! 

Oh, and by the way... I DID use your shuttle size/shape/configuration in my landing bay and hangar deck layouts.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

SteveR said:


> "Purist" is a pejorative term? I thought it was rather neutral.


Well, it has some baggage associated with it, in this context. It's typically used, in these conversations, as being just one step short of the term "canonista."

The issue is, no one can be a "purist" in the literal sense...because there are issues with different bits simply not fitting together. Everyone, without exception, has to pick and choose which bits they accept and which bits they reject. "Purist" is often used as a pejorative, by those who say "this part of the show, which you insist on keeping, is one of the parts I'm comfortable with abandoning, so you should agree with me."

I agree with Shaw... it's a loaded term. But I'll accept that maybe GSaum didn't mean it in that context, if he comes out and says so.

It's just one of those terms which you need to be careful about how you use... the language is full of those, and I'm having a hard time thinking of any situation where I can remember the term "purist" being used in a COMPLIMENTARY sense, regardless of context.

In other (non-Trek) situations, it's usually used to infer "inflexibility and hard-headedness." And I think that's normally how it's used here, as well.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Trekkriffic said:


> *OMG! this whole time I thought the bridge faced forward until a turbolift car arrived at which point the bridge rotated 36 degrees to the left!
> Man was I offbase or what???*


Look, for the LAST TIME, you are wrong! The bridge maintained a fixed position relative to the center of existance, THE UNIVERSE rotated 36 degrees around the bridge module in order to line up the doors with the elevator! :freak:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Trekkriffic said:


> *OMG! this whole time I thought the bridge faced forward until a turbolift car arrived at which point the bridge rotated 36 degrees to the left!
> Man was I offbase or what???*


Don't forget... the spinning bridge will cause crewmen to land on their collective posteriors each time, too!

(And they never did get around to putting in seatbelts, either!)


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> Don't forget... the spinning bridge will cause crewmen to land on their collective posteriors each time, too!
> 
> (And they never did get around to putting in seatbelts, either!)


It also causes Uhura to fall uphill!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

*CL*, I sent you a message with my email. 

Thanks!


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

RSN said:


> It also causes Uhura to fall uphill!


Ok, this made my day.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

> The issue is, no one can be a "purist" in the literal sense...because there are issues with different bits simply not fitting together. Everyone, without exception, has to pick and choose which bits they accept and which bits they reject. "Purist" is often used as a pejorative, by those who say "this part of the show, which you insist on keeping, is one of the parts I'm comfortable with abandoning, so you should agree with me."
> 
> I agree with Shaw... it's a loaded term. But I'll accept that maybe GSaum didn't mean it in that context, if he comes out and says so.


When I used the term "purist" I simply meant folks who are insistent that their project be as realistic to what's on screen as humanly possible. It wasn't meant as a put down or an insult. I, myself, will take a "purist" approach when I finally build my 350 Refit E in the style of that seen in TMP because, to me, the ship never looked better. I have no problem with folks who build models and take the time to achieve such detail. But for my own personal tastes, I draw the line between what is "pure" and what "looks good". When I build my 350 TOS Enterprise, the bridge will face forward because, IN MY OPINION, it looks good and built at a 30 degree angle looks goofy.

I hope this clarifies the point of my post. If some feel that my opinion is either insulting or unwarranted, then that's their own problem, because I have been as diplomatic as anyone should be expected to be.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Paulbo said:


> The old blueprints showed this nearly 40 years ago.


And _The Making of Star Trek_ showed the bridge centerline offset 36 degrees to the ship's centerline even earlier (1968, to be exact).

In any case, only the command conn, helm and navigator's station actually face "forward" (relative to the bridge centerline). Everyone else sits facing outward in a circle. 

So there. :tongue:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

scotpens said:


> And _The Making of Star Trek_ showed the bridge centerline offset 36 degrees to the ship's centerline even earlier (1968, to be exact).
> 
> In any case, only the command conn, helm and navigator's station actually face "forward" (relative to the bridge centerline). Everyone else sits facing outward in a circle.
> 
> So there. :tongue:


Exactly correct.

Assume that each bridge console is a computer station. Each station needs to have a few things...

1) It needs to be "bolted down" in some fashion.
2) It needs a power supply
3) It needs data connection (most probably, redundant data connections)
4) It needs a means of eliminating waste heat produced by whatever's going on inside of it.

So... what are we really talking about? Two or three redundant data cables, a power connection, and maybe a coolant line in/out. That's pretty much it for any individual station (including the main viewer).

So... to go from a "facing forwards" bridge to an "offset bridge," you'd need to do the following:

1) Remove the bridge railing and steps.
2) Unbolt the conn "platform" (captain, helm, nav) and rotate it to the next available "notch." Or to ANY available "notch".
3) Replace the railing and steps. (We have three totally different rail/step configurations seen on-screen.)
4) Unbolt the main viewer, the two "flat panels" to either side, and the two half-stations. (Possible more if you want to go to another orientation besides the one that was seen on-screen.)
5) Swap positions for these consoles, so that (in the case of the series) the viewer is right ahead of the conn platform, or in the case of "Where No Man Has Gone Before," it's offset by half a station's width.
6) Bolt the stations back down.
7) Reconnect the utilities.

Seems to me that this would be a good day's work to do. So you'd do it when you were "down." Meanwhile, you could still control the ship... after all, you have auxiliary control, down on Deck 8, right?

Pike probably ordered this, the first time that his new female Yeoman walked onto the bridge and snuck up behind him!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Just curious, why would the Captain be so concerned about the doors opening behind him when his chair swivels?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Trekkriffic said:


> Why would the Captain be so concerned about the doors opening behind him though when his chair swivels?


Considering how many kooks manage to get onto the bridge unimpeded it's not a bad idea to not have the door directly behind you.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

(Psssssssssssssssst, it was the Director of Photography that moved them. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!) :thumbsup:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Trekkriffic said:


> Just curious, why would the Captain be so concerned about the doors opening behind him when his chair swivels?


Well, think about it from your own perspective. If you're at work, at a desk... focused on what's going on directly in front of you... and something happens DIRECTLY BEHIND YOU... you can't just glance quickly over your shoulder. You have to totally shift your perspective. In this case... you'd have to totally break your focus on the main viewer, the navigation instrumentation, the big status displays (the flat panels to either side of the main viewer), the sensor annunciators (below the main viewer).

I'm sure that at least one captain dealt with this by putting a "rear view mirror" onto his captain's chair... sort of like what so many people who work in "cube farms" put onto their computer monitors, so they're not startled when someone "sneaks in" behind them. You know, like this?

http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Gear-Rearview-Mirrors-2/dp/B000QHVJWA

Same thing... basically. There are few things more disconcerting than being totally focused on something important, and suddenly, and startlingly, having something happen right behind you that distracts you.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> (Psssssssssssssssst, it was the Director of Photography that moved them. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!) :thumbsup:


Yeah, well, he was a Klingon spy... :freak:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> Yeah, well, he was a Klingon spy... :freak:


A Klingon spy..................in a naru jacket!!!!!!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

I can see it now:

DeForest Kelley: "Bill, this man's a Klingon!"


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Judging from the pictures of the bridge under construction, those turbolift doors weren't moved at all; where they wound up is exactly where they were meant to be from the get-go. I'd like to know where this notion originated that the bridge was "originally" designed with the turbolift doors aft and "somebody moved 'em", because it's supported by absolutely no facts or documentation.

As for that drawing in "The Making of Star Trek", not only is there is no relationship shown whatsoever between the interior set and the exterior hull, but the only centerline that's shown runs from the main viewscreen, through the helm and command chair, and communications console. If it's implying anything, it's that the helm faces forward. Go ahead, look it up.

And before swearing undying fealty to the model and all it's proportions, consider this:










Remember to make sure that saucer is not quite round, and that nacelles aren't parallel and are of different lengths. And from there, we'll discuss the TARDIS-like interior of the shuttlecraft.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain April said:


> Judging from the pictures of the bridge under construction, those turbolift doors weren't moved at all; where they wound up is exactly where they were meant to be from the get-go. I'd like to know where this notion originated that the bridge was "originally" designed with the turbolift doors aft and "somebody moved 'em", because it's supported by absolutely no facts or documentation.
> 
> As for that drawing in "The Making of Star Trek", not only is there is no relationship shown whatsoever between the interior set and the exterior hull, but the only centerline that's shown runs from the main viewscreen, through the helm and command chair, and communications console. If it's implying anything, it's that the helm faces forward. Go ahead, look it up.
> 
> ...


The door being moved, has been recounted by production people in various articles. The move was made before construction began and was decided upon based on the needs of filming. With the door directly behind the Captains chair, the Captain would be blocking anyone entering the set through the doors. Moving the door off-center would give them a 3/4 shot of the Captain and a clear line of sight for actors entering the shot. If the information is wrong and you can prove it, contact the Memory Alpha site, as they include this:

_"The Star Fleet Technical Manual, states that the original bridge was rotated 36° port, which would have the turbolift shaft travel down the centerline of the saucer section. The Technical Manual gives no reason for this offset. With artificial gravity limiting any sense of momentum and electronic displays instead of windows, there may have been no reason for the bridge crew to face directly forward.

According to production designer Matt Jeffries, dramatic necessity required the turbolift to be moved from its planned centerline position (as seen on the 
Enterprise model). This off-set placement allowed characters to walk onto the bridge and enter scenes without being blocked by actors sitting in the command chair."_

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Constitution_class

So it would seem Matt Jeffries himself is responsible for this "notion". :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> The door being moved, has been reconted by production people in various articles. The move was made before construction began and was decided upon based on the needs of filming. With the door directly behind the Captains chair, the Captain would be blocking anyone entering the set through the doors. Moving the door off-center would give them a 3/4 shot of the Captain and a clear line of sight for actors entering the shot. If the information is wrong and you can prove it, contact the Memory Alpha site, as they include this:
> 
> _"The Star Fleet Technical Manual, states that the original bridge was rotated 36° port, which would have the turbolift shaft travel down the centerline of the saucer section. The Technical Manual gives no reason for this offset. With artificial gravity limiting any sense of momentum and electronic displays instead of windows, there may have been no reason for the bridge crew to face directly forward.
> 
> ...


Well, wait, wait wait.

Are you linking the drawing in the Technical Manual with Jeffries statement about why the lift doors are where they are? That is, because the TM shows what it shows, that proves that Jeffries statement is meant to imply the TM is correct?

I must respectfully disagree on this.

What I get from Jeffries statement is simply the logistical and technical stagecraft reason for the placement of the lift doors. I don't read into it as a statement of fact that the bridge is offset and true forward is off Kirk's right shoulder. Jeffries was an excellent set designer (even if that wasn't his main craft) and he understood audience perception. Because of the design of the bridge the audience would naturally tend to think of the main viewer as the 'window in front' and there's zero evidence that he would intentionally subvert that.

And then we can get into the whole discussion of how the travel time in the Turbolift car equates to deck levels and the rate of the light bars relates to speed, none of which matters because going from the bridge to engineering took as long as the dialog or scene needs required. 

Look, As much as I love the Technical Manual (and the Blueprints), I NEVER consider them a 'primary source' in any way, shape or form. They both were drawn without any investigation of actual source material- no trips to the set, no measuring the model, handling props, nothing, nothing. It was long, long hours staring at projected slides made up from film clips and making s**t up. Which of course is what we fans love to do. 

Again, he got the Phaser very, very wrong. Communicator and Tricorder aren't much better. All three items were somewhat more accessible than the original sets (torn down) or the Big Enterprise (buried in Paramount's vault?) but even barring that, just looking at those same film clips would have..well, *that's another discussion for another time.

What is the tube behind the bridge dome? I dunno. Is it connected in some way to the Turbolift system? Might be. Why don't the doors of the lift shaft line up with that tube? Dunno, they don't. I'm not going to retcon the design choices that Probert and Sternbach made for the Enterprise-D onto the original Enterprise. Design choices that in some ways are influenced by the Tech Manual and the Blueprints, I might add. So it becomes a recursive wave. A moebius strip of causality.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> Well, wait, wait wait.
> 
> Are you linking the drawing in the Technical Manual with Jeffries statement about why the lift doors are where they are? That is, because the TM shows what it shows, that proves that Jeffries statement is meant to imply the TM is correct?
> 
> ...


You are exactly right and it is what I am saying and Matt Jeffries confirms. The bridge was designed to face forward and the lift door is offset from center.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well then! I...just...clarified and added context or something. I apologize if I sounded upset or outraged or something.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I get a headache from this issue argued over again and again and again and again...

The bridge doesn't fit into the uppermost dome (where it's obviously meant to be) unless the turbolift goes into the tube shape directly aft of the bridge dome. The result is an offset bridge. If you try to rotate the bridge so the command chair and the forward viewscreen are aligned along the ship's centreline then the turbolift is offset and protruding outside of the bridge dome. That obviously doesn't work. Then the only other option is to sink the bridge down almost all the way to Deck 2 and lose a helluva lot of that level for anything else. And from what I can see that makes zero sense also.

If I were designing a starship from scratch (and I have) then while I'd be inclined to put the bridge or main control centre in an upper part of the vessel I wouldn't put it in such an easily recognizable and vulnerable location. But I didn't design the TOS _E_ and so I can only go with what evidence I have at hand. And everything I'm aware of argues for it intended to be at the uppermost structure of the ship. And consequently it fits there only if it's offset. Yeah, it's odd, but life is full of things like that. Also since we're dealing with supposedly advanced 23rd century science and tech that allows for artificial gravity and exotic inertial systems then it won't make any difference to the ship's crew.

I've heard all the arguments, but fellows like *aridas* and *CLBrown* have neatly illustrated why the offset works and fits what we see the best.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> Well then! I...just...clarified and added context or something. I apologize if I sounded upset or outraged or something.


Not a bit, your statement was fine. I was just making sure I was clear in what I posted.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> I get a headache from this issue argued over and over and over again.
> 
> The bridge doesn't fit into the uppermost dome (where it's obviously meant to be) unless the turbolift goes into the tube shape directly aft of the bridge dome. The result is an offset bridge. If you try to rotate the bridge so the command chair and the forward viewscreen are aligned along the ship's centreline then the turbolift is offset and protruding outside of the bridge dome. That obviously doesn't work. Then the only other option is to sink the bridge down almost all the way to Deck 2 and lose a helluva lot of that level for anything else. And from what I can see that makes zero sense also.
> 
> ...


No one is arguing that it would fit, what we are saying is, it was originally designed with the door to the rear, therefore the elevator lined up with the the model. Matt Jeffries says that was his original design and it was always supposed to be facing forward even when the door was moved for filming purposes. The production company did not care that the set and the miniature did not match up, to them, it faced forward. Fan obsession with "Star Trek" making sense dictated it be offset. I side with the production team, I don't care if the doors don't match up with the bump on the outside, if someone does care, then offset the thing. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

While I can really respect someone's work their intent means little if it doesn't end up on the screen or just flat out doesn't make sense in the final result.

The only other way you can have the bridge facing forward _and_ fit into the upper dome is to scale up the size of the ship overall so the turbolift can fit into the dome without sinking the bridge down to Deck 2.

Anyone know how much bigger the ship has to be for that?

For what it's worth I won't be displaying the bridge on my R2 1/350 _E_ model because the upper sensor dome is going to be lit anyway. Also the one or two times we caught a glimpse of a good slice of the bridge's ceiling we could see it was opaque and solid and not transparent as it was apparent with the TNG _E._


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Like everything else in life, "Star Trek" is flawed fantasy show from the 1960's. I can live with that. Not much else to say on it! :thumbsup:


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Here's a question: 
On the rare early episodes when (Capt. Pike episode?) you could see through the dome in that really cool shot from above, can you tell what's facing where?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> I get a headache from this issue argued over again and again and again and again...
> 
> The bridge doesn't fit into the uppermost dome (where it's obviously meant to be) unless the turbolift goes into the tube shape directly aft of the bridge dome. The result is an offset bridge. If you try to rotate the bridge so the command chair and the forward viewscreen are aligned along the ship's centreline then the turbolift is offset and protruding outside of the bridge dome. That obviously doesn't work. Then the only other option is to sink the bridge down almost all the way to Deck 2 and lose a helluva lot of that level for anything else. And from what I can see that makes zero sense also.
> 
> ...


Not trying to cause headache, but let me ask. What's WRONG with deck 2/ B deck being mostly useless because it's taken up by the bridge and related mechanics? Is the opinion based on the Blueprints? The Blueprints are conjecture, created simply to fill space with stuff. They aren't real. Things don't have to be that way. Heck, maybe the 'bridge dome' is mostly equipment related to the upper sensor dome, huh? It wouldn't be logical for there to be a paper thin shell around the most important part of the ship, right?

A question for those with the math skills. Does the earlier 'big dome' bridge fit the requirements regarding physical space needs better?

Here's another thought thrown out. Does the bridge HAVE to be 'as seen on screen' to be real? Consider: We're looking at a stage set, built to accommodate the realities of TV film production in the '60s. Taking into account the massive amount of lighting, the physical space of the camera, the camera crew, the sound recording equipment, its likely larger than it would probably be, were it a real, operational, functioning thing. 

Now I know Roddenberry was a believer in creating an environment that allows for total human expression (as opposed to the 'cramped as all hell submarine' look so popular in other films lately) that's somewhat why the Enterprise often gets unfairly tagged as a Flying Holiday Inn in space, but I suspect one could take all the sets, shrink them maybe 15% and still be reasonably roomy. So what would happen, just to speculate, if one were to shrink the bridge 15% or thereabouts? Instead of expanding the ship, maybe. 

(oh, I know, I know so well about when an interior doesn't fit the exterior. Dealing with it now with the new Space Battleship Yamato 2199. producers decided that the ship just had to grow to actually fit everything as shown in the past, so what used to be a 268 meter ship is now 333 meters. Expanded in all directions to maintain original look and proportions. it takes some getting used to.  )


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

kdaracal said:


> Here's a question:
> On the rare early episodes when (Capt. Pike episode?) you could see through the dome in that really cool shot from above, can you tell what's facing where?


That's the funny thing. Nothing really lines up properly in that shot. It's meant to show the bridge is in the upper dome, but while it's a dramatic shot things don't line up right including that the outside tube doesn't reach high enough to accommodate the turbolift completely. From that shot I get that the bridge is meant to be in that dome, but not at the very top. And note that the dome on the Pike and WNMHGB ship is taller than the Kirk era version.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

kdaracal said:


> Here's a question:
> On the rare early episodes when (Capt. Pike episode?) you could see through the dome in that really cool shot from above, can you tell what's facing where?


The bridge is not quite facing forward, nor is the door on the set lined up with the bump on the miniature. To my eye, it looks like they were going with the bridge facing forward.........but my glass is always half full!


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

RSN said:


> The bridge is not quite facing forward, nor is the door on the set lined up with the bump on the miniature. To my eye, it looks like they were going with the bridge facing forward.........but my glass is always half full!


Thanks for the screen grab, RSN! I still love that shot. It's innovative for the time and shows they were trying. That shot looks especially difficult due to the weird angle and the round dome. A lot harder than a straight shot profile with a square window.

I remember an old Starlog article about how the movie Outland, with Sean Connery, used an innovation they called "introvison". It was one of the last and most convincing of the old, non-computer composite effects. They used sets of mirrors so you could see an active, live crew moving inside windows of miniature models. Alien and Aliens used similar old-school tech. Remember that cool shot from outside the Nostromo, after landing on the planet? You could see folks walking around the observation area from outside the miniature. Kick-butt!


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

RSN said:


> The bridge is not quite facing forward, nor is the door on the set lined up with the bump on the miniature. To my eye, it looks like they were going with the bridge facing forward.........but my glass is always half full!


I also love the crisp exterior detail only available in that shot. God that's cool.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

kdaracal said:


> Thanks for the screen grab, RSN! I still love that shot. It's innovative for the time and shows they were trying. That shot looks especially difficult due to the weird angle and the round dome. A lot harder than a straight shot profile with a square window.
> 
> I remember an old Starlog article about how the movie Outland, with Sean Connery, used an innovation they called "introvison". It was one of the last and most convincing of the old, non-computer composite effects. They used sets of mirrors so you could see an active, live crew moving inside windows of miniature models. Alien and Aliens used similar old-school tech. Remember that cool shot from outside the Nostromo, after landing on the planet? You could see folks walking around the observation area from outside the miniature. Kick-butt!


Since it was clearly a dome, as that was the intent of the design all along, I always reasoned the distortion of the bridge through the opening was along the lines of looking into an aquarium through thick glass. But clearly, the elevator door is nowhere close to lining up with the exterior bump. Gene woudl later repeat this feature, of a glass dome, in the Enterprise D. He said it was one of the features that tied the design lineage of the D with the original Enterprise.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ And yet there's a shot in WNMHGB and one other sometime later during the series where we can see the bridge ceiling is opaque. We also see the ceiling is opaque and solid in TAS' _Beyond The Farthest Star._


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ And yet there's a shot in WNMHGB and one other sometime later during the series where we can see the bridge ceiling is opaque. We also see the ceiling is opaque and solid in TAS' _Beyond The Farthest Star._


Simply because it was not built. And what was seen in WNMHGB was not the ceiling, rather the wall extentions above the stations to hide the rafters of the soundstage. A common practice up until the mid-80's when a great deal of light was need for indoor filming. With better film, ceilings were added back in to many sets, the Enterprise D for example, with the dome clearly visible now! Also, Kirk's best friend got his middle initial wrong!! As I said, it was a flawed TV series. Or was Gene wrong when he told me about the dome connection in his office?! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Not saying he was wrong in his intent, but his intent doesn't mean much when the evidence onscreen contradicts him. He might have wanted a transparent dome, but after _The Cage_ he signed off on a solid and opaque ceiling in both TOS and TAS as well as later in TMP.

The transparent ceiling in TNG just means the 1701D had one even if the TOS _E_ didn't.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Not saying he was wrong in his intent, but his intent doesn't mean much when the evidence onscreen contradicts him. He might have wanted a transparent dome, but after _The Cage_ he signed off on a solid and opaque ceiling in both TOS and TAS as well as later in TMP.
> 
> The transparent ceiling in TNG just means the 1701D had one even if the TOS _E_ didn't.


As I said, Gene himself told me the D had a clear dome just as the original Enterprise did....period. If you choose not to see it that way, then fine. Noooo problem. I have Faith the sun will come up tomorrow, whether or not we agree on something so trivial!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

RSN said:


> As I said, Gene himself told me the D had a clear dome just as the original Enterprise did....period. If you choose not to see it that way, then fine. Noooo problem. I have Faith the sun will come up tomorrow, whether or not we agree on something so trivial!


I admire a lot of what GR gave us in _Star Trek_ through TOS, TAS, TMP and TNG, but his wasn't the only voice. There were a lot of talented people who sweated the details of GR's broader ideas. He also had some less-than-inspired notions that fortunately others talked him out of. He was also a man of contradictions. This is a guy who signed off on FJ's blueprints and tech drawings meant to represent what we saw onscreen yet quickly enough a lot of us could see what we got was _not_ what we saw onscreen even if GR's signature was supposed to make it "official." This is a guy who has been known at times to take credit for other people's work.

I can appreciate GR without deifying or worshiping him. And there are times when I can't accept him as the final word on certain things Trek, particularly when the evidence doesn't support him.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> I admire a lot of what GR gave us in _Star Trek_ through TOS, TAS, TMP and TNG, but his wasn't the only voice. There were a lot of talented people who sweated the details of GR's broader ideas. He also had some less-than-inspired notions that fortunately others talked him out of. He was also a man of contradictions. This is a guy who signed off on FJ's blueprints and tech drawings meant to represent what we saw onscreen yet quickly enough a lot of us could see what we got was _not_ what we saw onscreen even if GR's signature was supposed to make it "official." This is a guy who has been known at times to take credit for other people's work.
> 
> I can appreciate GR without deifying or worshiping him. And there are times when I can't accept him as the final word on certain things Trek, particularly when the evidence doesn't support him.


I in no way worship him, far from it. I Worship only one. I am only giving ground work for those who wish to see it one way, other than another. There is no right or wrong on the matter. I can't wait to see all the builds by ALL the people who have given an opinion on this. I hope they will be spectacular, be they a bridge facing forward, as mine will when done, or at a 36 degree offset as yours will be. The sad truth is, most posting may not even build one, but just have fun sharing their feelings with fellow fans and builders. That is what I love about the Internet, it brings people together who may never meet otherwise to have a say in an open forum. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

RSN said:


> That is what I love about the Internet, it brings people together who may never meet otherwise to have a say in an open forum. :thumbsup:


I share in this sentiment. While I have fantastic memories of enjoying _Star Trek _when I was young in the '70s it was also somewhat of a lonely time because I didn't know and wasn't yet aware of many like minded people. For the past ten years I've been able to communicate with other fellow fans I might otherwise never have met. It's great and I cherish it even if and when we don't always agree.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> I admire a lot of what GR gave us in _Star Trek_ through TOS, TAS, TMP and TNG, but his wasn't the only voice. There were a lot of talented people who sweated the details of GR's broader ideas. He also had some less-than-inspired notions that fortunately others talked him out of. He was also a man of contradictions. This is a guy who signed off on FJ's blueprints and tech drawings meant to represent what we saw onscreen yet quickly enough a lot of us could see what we got was _not_ what we saw onscreen even if GR's signature was supposed to make it "official." This is a guy who has been known at times to take credit for other people's work.
> 
> I can appreciate GR without deifying or worshiping him. And there are times when I can't accept him as the final word on certain things Trek, particularly when the evidence doesn't support him.


That was a great shot from that episode. It showed a wall outside when the doors closed after Gary got in, it was then removed from view and the door opened onto the bridge all in one shot with no cut. Brilliant. As for the "opaque dome", it is just as I said, a mask put up above the top of the regular set to hide the roof of the soundstage and make this dramatic shot look so good. You can see the wrinkles in the fabric they used to create it and it was not a permanent feature of the set. Follow the seam lines up from the red stripe above the stations, were they end is where the permanent set ends. Just how TV was done back then.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Maybe so, but it's made to look like a ceiling and on a low resolution CRT television you don't notice it's fabric. I can't recall the episode, but I know there's another similar shot somewhere during the series. And then there's the Intruder Defense System mounted on the bridge's ceiling in "Beyond The Farthest Star."

Truth is it would have been cool to have seen some hardware or fixtures up there something like we saw in TMP. It would have added to the "reality" of a functioning control centre within the enclosed confines of a spaceship. When else did we get to see a ceiling? Didn't we see it in the theatre in "The Conscience Of The King"? Of course there's also the ceiling of the shuttlecraft flight deck even if that was a miniature set.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Maybe so, but it's made to look like a ceiling and on a low resolution CRT television you don't notice it's fabric. I can't recall the episode, but I know there's another similar shot somewhere during the series. And then there's the Intruder Defense System mounted on the bridge's ceiling in "Beyond The Farthest Star."
> 
> Truth is it would have been cool to have seen some hardware or fixtures up there something like we saw in TMP. It would have added to the "reality" of a functioning control centre within the enclosed confines of a spaceship. When else did we get to see a ceiling? Didn't we see it in the theatre in "The Conscience Of The King"? Of course there's also the ceiling of the shuttlecraft flight deck even if that was a miniature set.


I would imagine the same tarp was used on the Engine Room redress for "The Conscience Of The King" on the low angle looking up. My personal favorite bridge set was in ST:TMP with the ceiling ribs and astrogator dome above the helm. Very dynamic! No question there about the dome being clear or opaque and the best overall designs in the history of the franchise for me.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Yep, can't beat the TOS bridge. :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> Simply because it was not built. And what was seen in WNMHGB was not the ceiling, rather the wall extentions above the stations to hide the rafters of the soundstage. A common practice up until the mid-80's when a great deal of light was need for indoor filming. With better film, ceilings were added back in to many sets, the Enterprise D for example, with the dome clearly visible now! Also, Kirk's best friend got his middle initial wrong!! As I said, it was a flawed TV series. Or was Gene wrong when he told me about the dome connection in his office?! :thumbsup:


Wellll, you have to remember about Roddenberry, above all else he wanted to be loved/accepted/worshipped/whatever. If 'a' wanted a positive answer, he would give a positive answer. If 'b' wanted the opposite, that's what he would say. If 'a' and 'b' confronted him at the same time, esp. in public? He'd just about explode trying to find a way to deflect the question or run away. 

It's one of the things about the man that made me most sad (of many things) upon learning of it. 

But the man had a genius about READING people. he could figure out in an instant what one was looking for, what kind of affirmation and he could key in on that like a shark tasting blood in the water. 

I ofttimes wonder what would have happened had Gene **** stayed alive, maybe worked the 3rd season, brought in to help Roddenberry on ST:TMP...would the birth of TNG gone more smoothly? Would all those people who left have stayed on and made a brilliant show from day one, because **** would have held back Roddenberry from some of his story killing excesses?

Of course in SOME Universe that's exactly what happened, so I guess that's good.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> You are exactly right and it is what I am saying and Matt Jeffries confirms. The bridge was designed to face forward and the lift door is offset from center.


Yep.

Those are two SEPARATE ISSUES. That's the thing that some folks are missing.

1) The original design intent of Matt Jefferies was to have a bridge that was "in-line"... monitor, conn, captain's chair, lift tube... all symmetrical to the ship's centerline.

2) The door ON THE SET was moved to be offset, by the production staff, in order to make a better place to shoot the show.

But, M.J's drawings make it quite clear that the tube is the lift tube. That was always his design intent.

We only have four possible REAL solutions:

1) Move the bridge out of the dome. (That's how C.R.A. dealt with the issue.)

2) Dramatically increase the scale of the ship exterior, or reduce the scale of the bridge interior, so that the bridge and the lift can both fit entirely within the dome.

3) Move the external life tube feature to be ~35 degrees offset to the port.

4) Rotate the bridge interior so that the screen is ~35 degrees offset to the port.

Or, I suppose there's a fifth option...

"Don't bother to try to make any of it make sense."

That's no fun, though, is it?


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> I get a headache from this issue argued over again and again and again and again...
> 
> The bridge doesn't fit into the uppermost dome (where it's obviously meant to be) unless the turbolift goes into the tube shape directly aft of the bridge dome. The result is an offset bridge. If you try to rotate the bridge so the command chair and the forward viewscreen are aligned along the ship's centreline then the turbolift is offset and protruding outside of the bridge dome. That obviously doesn't work. Then the only other option is to sink the bridge down almost all the way to Deck 2 and lose a helluva lot of that level for anything else. And from what I can see that makes zero sense also.
> 
> ...


Naval bridges... particular submarine bridges... illustrate, quite clearly, why it's not necessary to face forward.










On a sub, the "driver" faces 90 degrees to the side, all the time. And on a sub, you can FEEL the movement of the sub.

How much less important is it on a ship where you can't feel anything unless a Romulan nuke pops off 200 meters to your bow?


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

kdaracal said:


> Here's a question:
> On the rare early episodes when (Capt. Pike episode?) you could see through the dome in that really cool shot from above, can you tell what's facing where?


Not really. They only did that shot once, really... and sort of recycled it for the second pilot.

In "The Cage," the shot was a terribly bad (by modern standards) move-matching effort. remember, the "deck plane" of the bridge was at least 15 degrees off from the ships's horizontal plane, and was tipping wildly, throughout that entire original shot. To be fair... they were shooting the model in one place, shooting the live-action shot in another place, and had no means of accurately matching the two moves.

The sole purpose of that shot was to establish, to the viewer, that "this set is inside of this ship, in this location." Which it did, and did effectively. That the two moves were so horribly mis-matched doesn't give the specifics of the shot too much credence, however.

When they re-did the shot for the "remastered" show, they tried to make the shot work a little bit better, but it still doesn't really work... because neither the lift tube nor the main viewer are on the ship's centerline. It seems almost like they had two warring factions and they ended up doing a Solomon solution... splitting the difference, so NEITHER side gets what they wanted. :drunk:

All we know, for certain, from that shot is that the bridge is supposed to be within that dome. If we take the shot entirely at face value, the bridge is also mounted on a funky gymbal setup and swings around, wildly, within the ship.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Not being picky, can you show me where on Jeffries drawings he calls out the tube on the back of the bridge as the shaft for the turbolift? I don't recall ANY drawings calling out exterior details, the main one I recall was the interior cutaway that was used as a graphic showing where there was pressure..gaah, what episode was that, Space Seed? It was one the tri-viewer in the briefing room if memory serves.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> A question for those with the math skills. Does the earlier 'big dome' bridge fit the requirements regarding physical space needs better?


No, not really.

That's one "subtle" thing I did in my CAD model, by the way. I made by bridge dome sort of a hybrid between the pilot and production versions... ie, it's the height and shape of the production version, and is a very close match to the production version, but the BASE of the dome is slightly larger (and is, in fact, a perfect match to the pilot dome base). I wanted to be able to justify that the new bridge dome was just a "drop in replacement" for the pilot dome, without having to totally rebuild the B/C deck superstructure as well. (It's so subtle, I seldom even mention it.)

The thing is, the bridge dome is a DOME. So, while you can put the BASE of the lift tube inside the BASE of the dome... unless the lift care is actually a short cone, it simply won't fit!

Now, you can change the shape of the entire bridge deck... say, to the shape used on the AMT kit, or on the F.J. blueprint set... and then, with a small increase in diameter and height, you could potentially do this. But as long as the bridge dome is a DOME... no, it just can't work.


> Here's another thought thrown out. Does the bridge HAVE to be 'as seen on screen' to be real? Consider: We're looking at a stage set, built to accommodate the realities of TV film production in the '60s. Taking into account the massive amount of lighting, the physical space of the camera, the camera crew, the sound recording equipment, its likely larger than it would probably be, were it a real, operational, functioning thing.


Well, it's actually a remarkably effective working space. In fact, the US Navy liked the design so much that they actually used it as a pattern for some of their ground-based control centers. Make it a lot smaller, and you lose some of the functionality.

And it's not really all THAT big. If you want to make it into an aircraft interior... like the interior of the E-2C/D "Hawkeye" (which I had the good fortune to spend some time aboard, developing system upgrades)... you can do that. But that's not someplace I'd want to spend more than a few hours in out of any given day. It's pretty cramped... and that's not what you want if you can avoid it, when your crew is going to spend YEARS living inside of a tin can.


> Now I know Roddenberry was a believer in creating an environment that allows for total human expression (as opposed to the 'cramped as all hell submarine' look so popular in other films lately) that's somewhat why the Enterprise often gets unfairly tagged as a Flying Holiday Inn in space,


Actually, that was leveled at the 1701-D, but not so much at the original ship, or the TMP ship.


> but I suspect one could take all the sets, shrink them maybe 15% and still be reasonably roomy. So what would happen, just to speculate, if one were to shrink the bridge 15% or thereabouts? Instead of expanding the ship, maybe.


That's a position some others have taken. I've had that very conversation with Aridas Sophia... I was in favor of up-sizing a particular ship to make the sets work, and he was in favor of reducing set size to fit (mainly in terms of deck height, in that case). Both are potential compromises... and one or the other had to occur, in order to make things work. We just differed on which was more "acceptable" as a compromise. I respect the heck out of the guy, and like him, too, so we just agreed to disagree.

So, your argument there is not really unique... you're in good company. I just happen to prefer putting the sets, as seen-on-screen, into the ship, also as seen on-screen, and if that means that the "not seen on screen" dimensions need to shift a bit, so be it!


> (oh, I know, I know so well about when an interior doesn't fit the exterior. Dealing with it now with the new Space Battleship Yamato 2199. producers decided that the ship just had to grow to actually fit everything as shown in the past, so what used to be a 268 meter ship is now 333 meters. Expanded in all directions to maintain original look and proportions. it takes some getting used to.  )


Yep, that's a huge part of why I decided to take on doing a full (interior and exterior) Enterprise... to put to bed (in my own mind, at least!) how things really need to be in order for everything to work.

But then again, as we've said before, it's a make-believe ship... so there's not a whole lot of use getting TOO torqued up about it. We're all "the sole expert" on the ship which exists in our individual heads. :hat:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

On the Enterprise and being a Holiday Inn in Space, this is a common charge leveled by critics deconstructing the show, generally around the time of first syndication- early '70s. The -D is clearly more a Hilton.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> Not being picky, can you show me where on Jeffries drawings he calls out the tube on the back of the bridge as the shaft for the turbolift? I don't recall ANY drawings calling out exterior details, the main one I recall was the interior cutaway that was used as a graphic showing where there was pressure..gaah, what episode was that, Space Seed? It was one the tri-viewer in the briefing room if memory serves.


Well, that was only seen on-screen in "The Enterprise Incident." But it was part of the show bible, publicity packages, etc, for a long time before that made it onto the air.

It shows the bridge, with a little indented area, and then the outer deck... and in line, there's a vertical tube running downwards, from the back of the bridge dome.

Now... I've read Jefferies say that this was the lift tube, but I can't recall for certain where.

However, Doug Drexler directly consulted with Matt Jefferies to create the print he created for the Defiant, for the "ENTERPRISE" episode "In a Mirror Darkly" (click on it on this page!), and got Jefferies' blessing for everything here.

If Jefferies didn't want this to be the lift tube, he'd have corrected Doug on this matter, wouldn't he have?

Now, Drexler's drawing varies even further than some of the other solutions do, because this is not a 947' ship, or a 1067' ship (like mine) or a 1080' ship (the other widely accepted length). This ship is more like 1200', or even larger, by my best estimate (this can best be noted by looking at the area around the landing bay). And it does incorporate a lot of "TNG-era" tech which I, personally, don't like having on the Enterprise. Also, it's an "Adobe Illustrator" drawing, not a 3D model. But even given all those caviots, it's still very impressive.

Drexler put the lift tube in there, and Matt Jefferies approved Drexler's drawing as reflecting Jefferies' original design intent.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> Not being picky, can you show me where on Jeffries drawings he calls out the tube on the back of the bridge as the shaft for the turbolift? I don't recall ANY drawings calling out exterior details, the main one I recall was the interior cutaway that was used as a graphic showing where there was pressure..gaah, what episode was that, Space Seed? It was one the tri-viewer in the briefing room if memory serves.


"Day of the Dove"! Kang is looking at it on the viewer and describing how many crew members were trapped in the engineering section............with the exception of engineering. This graphic was actually a graphic from the bridge engineering station and was pulled out of one of the squares to be filmed for the "burn in" in the scene. Somehow it never made it back to the bridge and ended up in Matt Jeffries office, where it left with him when the show ended, if I remember the story correctly.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> Well, that was only seen on-screen in "The Enterprise Incident." But it was part of the show bible, publicity packages, etc, for a long time before that made it onto the air.
> 
> It shows the bridge, with a little indented area, and then the outer deck... and in line, there's a vertical tube running downwards, from the back of the bridge dome.
> 
> ...


Devil's advocate, it's a 2-D drawing. There's no telling just how that tube actually aligns. And as you say, there's PLENTY of cheats and different choices made. Jeffries may well have said "eh, whatever, you care more than I did" and just smiled and patted him on the head. I'll also note Drexler seems to keep to the FJ Blueprints, as being of the Mandel/McMaster generation would be expected. 

Hm, I note he seems to do the 'short' Shuttle bay because of the need to make room for the pylons. Why? The big tabs holding the pylons in place are only needed due to the restrictions of a plastic kit, A real ship that needn't be the case, right? Different materials, different stress management concepts, etc. 

Ohhh, he's got some goofy stuff going on there. Not a question way too much TNG thinking. But, it's very pretty. I'd buy the poster. 

I mean, consider page 85 of the Star Trek Sketchbook. I am firmly confident you have this ready to hand. 

Cutaway drawing. Shows what seems to be lift shafts. What's that along that spine bit on the aft saucer? is that a shaft going up to the hull there? is that real? Are there lift shafts in the nacelle pylons? 

MAYBE it's not what it seems, eh?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> "Day of the Dove"! Kang is looking at it on the viewer and describing how many crew members were trapped in the engineering section............with the exception of engineering. This graphic was actually a graphic from the bridge engineering station and was pulled out of one of the squares to be filmed for the "burn in" in the scene. Somehow it never made it back to the bridge and ended up in Matt Jeffries office, where it left with him when the show ended, if I remember the story correctly.


Yeah, yeah...excellent...now do Lincoln. 

(bad, BAD inside fannish joke)


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> I admire a lot of what GR gave us in _Star Trek_ through TOS, TAS, TMP and TNG, but his wasn't the only voice. There were a lot of talented people who sweated the details of GR's broader ideas. He also had some less-than-inspired notions that fortunately others talked him out of. He was also a man of contradictions. This is a guy who signed off on FJ's blueprints and tech drawings meant to represent what we saw onscreen yet quickly enough a lot of us could see what we got was _not_ what we saw onscreen even if GR's signature was supposed to make it "official." This is a guy who has been known at times to take credit for other people's work.
> 
> I can appreciate GR without deifying or worshiping him. And there are times when I can't accept him as the final word on certain things Trek, particularly when the evidence doesn't support him.


That's a fun and rare shot. I suppose in the 23rd century, you can have whatever tech you need. Transporters, food replicators, the occasional clear dome that can change to opaque (or have elaborate cloth covering mechanisms) when desired. In any case, nice to see those cool archives!

:wave:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> Yeah, yeah...excellent...now do Lincoln.
> 
> (bad, BAD inside fannish joke)


You asked, I answered, your welcome.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> Hm, I note he seems to do the 'short' Shuttle bay because of the need to make room for the pylons. Why? The big tabs holding the pylons in place are only needed due to the restrictions of a plastic kit, A real ship that needn't be the case, right? Different materials, different stress management concepts, etc.


Sorry, that's just not logical. No matter what material is used, no matter what "magical" materials or "forcefields" or whatever, you still have to deal with the basic laws of physics. In fact, the mechanical requirements for a starship would be far, far more serious than those for a desktop model.

Doug, as it turns out, did something I did as well (although I hadn't seen his drawing in this level of detail prior to just today... I somehow missed this on his site the first time, it seems!)

Not only do the nacelle pylons extend all the way to the core of the secondary hull, there's also a "keel" right at the centerline of the secondary hull. (In my case, I also extended a robust mechanical structure through the dorsal leading and trailing edges, all the way from the impulse deck down to the keel.... I don't see any indication of that in Doug Drexler's drawing.)

Unless the ship is purely "magical"... and, at least in TOS, the ship seemed to use extension of familiar technology (they even had crescent wrenches in engineering, after all!)... the ship has to obey basic laws of physics. And, while you may be able to argue that while in warp, the stresses on the ship's framework are minimal (since warp is, evidently, a non-newtonian propulsion system), and you may even claim that "impulse" has nothing to do with the classical Newtonian definition of the term (an impulse is a force applied over time, essentially), the ship is still going to be subjected to major mechanical loading (and yes, we hear about "buckling" from time to time in TOS, so we know that this is a real issue).

Having those pylons be, essentially, "box beams," extending through the nacelles and through the secondary hull, to a rigid "keel," and then reinforced between each other and also between them and the dorsal by a "strongback" structure, can lead to a very robust mechanical solution.

I actually used my CAD model, early on, and did real FEA (finite-element analysis) work on it. I optimized the pylons to be box-beams with three internal chambers, but ended up having to revert back to four internal chambers (which didn't compromise the strength, it actually helped it, but it added a lot more mass than it did strength!) in order to make the pylon windows line up with one of the box regions.

The bottom line... you get more than two orders of magnitude better mechanical strength... REGARDLESS OF MATERIAL USED... (and to those who don't get that comment... I mean "more than 100 times, and as much as 999 times") the strength, by extending those all the way to the core of the secondary hull, and by having a "keel" in that location, tied into the dorsal. All with a pretty minimal cost in terms of mass, volume, etc.

You just have to accept that the landing bay sits behind the pylons. Which is another thing that Matt Jefferies had on that set of drawings he did, showing the interior and exterior configuration he'd intended.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

kdaracal said:


> That's a fun and rare shot. I suppose in the 23rd century, you can have whatever tech you need. Transporters, food replicators, the occasional clear dome that can change to opaque (or have elaborate cloth covering mechanisms) when desired. In any case, nice to see those cool archives!
> 
> :wave:


A key thing to notice in the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" bridge... and you can pretty well see it here, though you might not notice it immediately... is that the "conn" is not in line with the viewer. It's a full half-console offset. So, Kirk, Mitchell, and Kelso have to look slightly to their left, not straight ahead!

In fact, it seems that, if the conn was considered the centerline... the lift and the viewer are symmetrical, front to back, with respect to the conn, doesn't it?

In that shot, the conn is facing the flat panel (later dressed up with some status-display winkie-blinkies for the series bridge) to the right of the main viewer.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> You asked, I answered, your welcome.


Well, yeah, I do mean it, thank you for that clarification.


----------



## Avian (Feb 16, 2010)

Actually, the truth is that the viewscreen is directly forward and the lift tube is directly aft. I can't believe that all of you are forgetting that 23rd Century cameras intentionally distort perspectives so that all of the action takes place within the traditional boundaries of cinematic rules! :tongue:


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

> _In that shot, the conn is facing the flat panel (later dressed up with some status-display winkie-blinkies for the series bridge) to the right of the main viewer._


Wonderful observation. I imagine that the movable set pieces can be fudged one way or the other to accommodate the camera. The screen is certainly more interesting to look at from that angle. If you want to see some real magical moving bulkheads, watch a few episodes of Lost in Space. That mystery room next to the lift was all over the place! And pictures floated from wall to wall, depending on the set director's mood!


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

CLBrown said:


> In that shot, the conn is facing the flat panel (later dressed up with some status-display winkie-blinkies for the series bridge) to the right of the main viewer.





kdaracal said:


> Wonderful observation.


Actually, considering the number of times that the center platform didn't line up with the main viewscreen, I always assumed that it rotated to any direction the captain wanted (focusing his attention to which ever bridge station the mission called for). 








And I figured that some captains might even opt not to have a main viewscreen in favor of a couple more bridge stations. It always seemed like an unnecessary waste of space on the bridge to me.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

That I chalk up to a bit of sloppiness partly due to the pressures and time constraints of series television production. Additionally most involved probably thought no one would notice and certainly no one would likely be talking about it more than forty years later.


----------



## JediPuju (Oct 12, 2009)

Could the turbolift itself shift to the side when it arrives at the bridge?
It slides back to join up with the turbolift shaft before going down again. This way everybody's happy !


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

JediPuju said:


> Could the turbolift itself shift to the side when it arrives at the bridge? It slides back to join up with the turbolift shaft before going down again. This way everybody's happy !


No, because there simply isn't enough room. The turbolift would be sticking out of the exterior hull of the dome.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Shaw, THAT is a really weird shot and I've probably seen it a million times in the show and never really noticed it! All I can figure is they were shooting scenes on the bridge that required some sections opened up and needed a quick bit to fill time in the episode, and not wanting to take the time to reset the bridge properly, so they went as tight as they could...

wacky.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Most likely reason for the position of the helm in that shot from "By Any Other Name" was so that they wouldn't have to deal with the viewscreen, i.e., having to go through the expensive task of putting something up on a normally blank viewscreen.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

>


Just to mix things up a bit more. Look above the tarp extention of the bridge walls. There appears to be a circular opening which is black inside in the top right. Space and stars through the clear dome on top? This picture could be interpreted to say a big Y-E-S to that! 

As for the helm not pointing straight in "...No Man...", this is simply a case of moving a set piece to stage the shot better. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

That would be an awfully small hole compared to the dome we see in _The Cage_ exterior shot. What would be the point? And candidly we really can't see anything there.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> That would be an awfully small hole compared to the dome we see in _The Cage_ exterior shot. What would be the point? And candidly we really can't see anything there.


 But it is there..............so there must be a reason for it!  :thumbsup:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> That would be an awfully small hole compared to the dome we see in _The Cage_ exterior shot. What would be the point? And candidly we really can't see anything there.


Look, guys, it's very clear what's going on up there...

The bridge ceiling is a huge window.

What you see up there are DRAPERIES!

'Nuff said!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> Look, guys, it's very clear what's going on up there...
> 
> The bridge ceiling is a huge window.
> 
> ...


You WIN!!!!! That is THE definitive answer and covers all bases!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> Look, guys, it's very clear what's going on up there...
> 
> The bridge ceiling is a huge window.
> 
> ...


That's just begging for some Photoshop work. :lol:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Captain April said:


> Most likely reason for the position of the helm in that shot from "By Any Other Name" was so that they wouldn't have to deal with the viewscreen, i.e., having to go through the expensive task of putting something up on a normally blank viewscreen.


Sure, or as I said, the wild sections may have been pulled for the shoot and resetting them wasn't considered worthwhile for the time available. 

It's just surprising to me that I had never caught that.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

CLBrown said:


> Look, guys, it's very clear what's going on up there...
> 
> The bridge ceiling is a huge window.
> 
> ...


LOL :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Steve H said:


> Sure, or as I said, the wild sections may have been pulled for the shoot and resetting them wasn't considered worthwhile for the time available.
> 
> It's just surprising to me that I had never caught that.


Considering just about all the shots on the bridge are the traditional angle with the turbolift centered in the background, it's entirely possible, if not probable, that the viewscreen was removed during the whole production of the episode.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

>


In the second pilot, the lower platform with the Captain's chair and helm was placed at an 18-degree angle to the elevator, which is why the helm is seen pointing oddly to the right of the main view screen.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

And here folks we have a helm pretty much lined up with the elevator shaft and NOT the communication station! It is facing directly forward and is so for a good part of the episode! It just gets better and better.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> And here folks we have a helm pretty much lined up with the elevator shaft and NOT the communication station! It is facing directly forward and is so for a good part of the episode! It just gets better and better.


Nah, that's still the "half-console offset," approximately 18 degrees. And with the viewer approximately 18 degrees offset from the "conn" as well.

The offset between the lift tube and the viewer remains ~ 36 degrees, in other words, and the conn simply split the difference in WNMHGB.

We know that the "conn platform," like the rest of the bridge, was "wild." But the railings were fixed... they had to build totally different railings for the first-pilot, second-pilot, and series bridges. It's the railings that really define the bridge configuration.

For "The Cage," the railings were two nearly full half-circle arcs, with openings directlly in front of and directly behind the "conn." The configuration was identical to the series run, in terms of angles, however. There were no steps down to the "recess" from the lateral banks of consoles.

For "Where No Man Has Gone Before," they added the side-steps. But the railing sections were all "odd" sizes. There were openings leading up to the main viewer (36 degrees from the lift tube centerline), directly behind the conn (again, 36 degrees from the lift tube centerline), and to either side, at 90 degrees from the lift tube centerline. This results in a very, very small "rail" section just to the left of the main viewer... look for it!

For the series, the rails were all set up relative to the conn... and were "essentially" the same (though not 100% identical, since the various pie-wedges making up the outer platform weren't all the same angular size!)

I agree with CRA's supposition, above, that they likely shot the "Chekov" shot with the misaligned conn due to schedule... not wanting to have to pull the "wild" segments of the bridge back into place just to get this one "fill in" shot. Likely, they assumed that the audience would never see that shot again, so why would it matter?

They never realized we'd be measuring the bridge for drapes nearly half a century later!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I don't know........it is seen on film........................... (Tongue firmly planted in cheek!!!!) :hat:


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Captain April said:


> . . . As for that drawing in "The Making of Star Trek", not only is there is no relationship shown whatsoever between the interior set and the exterior hull, but the only centerline that's shown runs from the main viewscreen, through the helm and command chair, and communications console. If it's implying anything, it's that the helm faces forward. Go ahead, look it up.


My bad. I was remembering it wrong. It was Franz Joseph's blueprints that first called out the bridge as being offset 36 degrees to the centerline of the ship.



kdaracal said:


> I still love that shot. It's innovative for the time and shows they were trying. That shot looks especially difficult due to the weird angle and the round dome. A lot harder than a straight shot profile with a square window.


Especially since they were trying to line up a pan-dolly-and-zoom shot of the 11-foot model with footage of the bridge set using an optical composite -- basically the only way of achieving such an effect at the time. The remastered CGI shot appears as though we're actually looking through a transparent dome into the bridge -- but things _still_ don't line up quite right!


----------



## Spidey7 (Jun 5, 2008)

WOW! I'm beginning to see why this was a topic not to be raised. Lol. I had NO IDEA that there was such interest/passion about this topic. Just blame it on the stupid N00bi3.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Spidey7 said:


> WOW! I'm beginning to see why this was a topic not to be raised. Lol. I had NO IDEA that there was such interest/passion about this topic. Just blame it on the stupid N00bi3.


Oh, c'mon, now... ask us about whether the main power generation occurs in the nacelles or in the secondary hull... puh-LEASE? Gotta keep this place lively, after all! :dude:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

You're one of those "scorched earth" goons, aren't ya?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Granted these discussions aren't as heated as I've seen them in years past. At this point everyone has pretty much staked their position and (mostly) given up trying to persuade everyone else.

I remember the heated debates---hell arguments---about ENT's legitimacy when it came out and was running. I remember because I was neck deep in it. The other one that comes to mind was in regard to ST09 and the JJverse, though that one will likely resurface once the sequel is gets out.

Those discussions make the tech issues look like polite society tea get-togethers.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

On some boards, like TrekBBS, the smoke is still rising from the rubble, lo, these many years later...


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I wonder how the Thermians would have resolved it?


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

SteveR said:


> I wonder how the Thermians would have resolved it?


With choppers, obviously!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> Spidey7 said:
> 
> 
> > WOW! I'm beginning to see why this was a topic not to be raised. Lol. I had NO IDEA that there was such interest/passion about this topic. Just blame it on the stupid N00bi3.
> ...


Or try getting a bunch of Trek geeks together and ask them whether Starfleet is a military outfit. Or whether they use money in the 24th century. Then stand back and watch the fur fly.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

_Meowww!!!_


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

OMG... 9 pages concerning the proper orientation of the bridge in relation to the centerline of the ship...

I never thought that this thing would go the distance.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Gemini1999 said:


> OMG... 9 pages concerning the proper orientation of the bridge in relation to the centerline of the ship...
> 
> I never thought that this thing would go the distance.


Nine pages? _Pfffft,_ that's nothin'.


----------



## Spidey7 (Jun 5, 2008)

Gemini1999 said:


> OMG... 9 pages concerning the proper orientation of the bridge in relation to the centerline of the ship...
> 
> I never thought that this thing would go the distance.


I think that a majority of this thread's explosive popularity should be credited to my initial, wonderful pictures with the carefully drawn red and green arrows pointing out the "offset". Without those? Two replies MAX!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Oh, no doubt about it. :tongue:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I think the majority of this thread has all been in good fun. We all know we are not solving the worlds problems, we are looking at a nearly 50 year old TV show and trying to make more sense out of it than the people who made never cared about. I for one have had a great deal of fun participating. OH, and my bridge will face forward!! :tongue:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

RSN said:


> OH, and my bridge will face forward!! :tongue:


Well...well that's just delusional. :lol:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> Well...well that's just delusional. :lol:


I prefer the word..............VISIONARY! (Best Dr. Smith voice!)


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

*We're all winners!*

I was just watching a YouTube video of the Round 2 presentation at Wonderfest and they showed pictures of the bridge insert. It will have notches on it which will allow the builder to either build it facing forward or off set at 30 degrees. This was all the idea of Michael Anderson, a fan and consultant on the project. Thanks for looking out for ALL of us Mike! 

Follow the link and fast forward to about 13:30.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

What about the theory that the bridge is really on deck 5, facing rearward, and upside-down?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> What about the theory that the bridge is really on deck 5, facing rearward, and upside-down?


I thought we had decided it was deck 5 AND 6 and that it was sideways?!! Now I am confused!!!!!! :freak:


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

RSN said:


> I thought we had decided it was deck 5 AND 6 and that it was sideways?!! Now I am confused!!!!!! :freak:


Or was it located at a vertical angle down in the secondary hull behind the swimming pool?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

You're all wrong. The bridge is actually a highly sophisticated simulator remotely controling the ship from Starbase 12. When you take the turbolift you're let out right next to a convenient Tim Horton's.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

(doing my best Keannu Reeves voice...)

_There is no bridge..._

Whoa, dude!


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

No one's mentioning the grid line test shot at 38:44? If test shot #3 is what we're getting, they're mighty fine now. It's a non-issue to me, but I know some folks were concerned.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Yes, I loved seeing that. The grids on the built display model at Wonderfest were too strong. But those shown look to be great. 

So, will 1701 club members receive an email when the kit is available?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

jheilman said:


> So, will 1701 club members receive an email when the kit is available?


Yes, I believe that's always been meant to be the case. That's when we to pay for the kit to be shipped to us. That's what I understand.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

fire91bird said:


> No one's mentioning the grid line test shot at 38:44? If test shot #3 is what we're getting, they're mighty fine now. It's a non-issue to me, but I know some folks were concerned.


I got the impression they are trying to make it even finer then that. Hopefully the newsletter will provide more info.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

fire91bird said:


> No one's mentioning the grid line test shot at 38:44? If test shot #3 is what we're getting, they're mighty fine now. It's a non-issue to me, but I know some folks were concerned.


Agreed. That test shot #3 is pretty nice, and yet they're trying for even better. This kit just keeps getting better and better.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Not to argue, but where did you guys hear they're trying to get better than #3? I only heard they were trying to improve what was shown at Wonderfest, which was test shot #1. Personally, I think #3 is just fine and the grid might even disappear under a coat of paint if you're not careful (or want it to).


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Agreed. I think #3 is the final version. That pic was added way after the presentation was recorded.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Well, the text on that image stated that "#3" is still not quite where they want it to be.

Shot #3 looks like it's something like 0.003" wide/deep. The original "Shot #1" was something like 0.008" wide/deep. The "ideal target" for the lines is 0.0015" wide/deep. The finest etched lines I've seen were 0.001"... plus or minus 0.0003"... which would give a tolerance range for the lines of from 0.0007" to 0.0013". You'll see lines that thickness on some of the really top-quality Japanese kits, and on "professional" (non-hobby, in other words) molded parts.

It costs a lot more to make them that fine... the quality of the machine tool which machines that feature must be exceptional... moreso than most machine shops use, either in the USA or in China. The machine must be in perfect balance, must have a very, very precise spindle, must have very, very tight bearing tolerances (meaning that the machine can only be operated in a very closely-controlled temperature range to prevent bearing seize-up). It CAN be done... but I question whether or not the tooling house will have that level of capability (not a slam... most don't!)


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

fire91bird said:


> Not to argue, but where did you guys hear they're trying to get better than #3? I only heard they were trying to improve what was shown at Wonderfest, which was test shot #1. Personally, I think #3 is just fine and the grid might even disappear under a coat of paint if you're not careful (or want it to).


I understood that the last shot they had was #3 and they were hoping to do better.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

CLBrown said:


> Well, the text on that image stated that "#3" is still not quite where they want it to be.


Not quite. The text is simply restating the audience member's question during the presentation in May. He was questioning whether the lines seen on the display ship were final. They were test shot #1. Jamie (speaking in May) mentions test shot #2 is arriving soon. In the pic, taken much more recently, we see test shot #3 which I'm told is the final. And I think they look great. Couple coats of primer and sanding and they will disappear. Or a very faint wash in them to bring them out.

That pic was not part of Jamie's WF presentation. It, and a few other updates, were added to the video later.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I haven't dropped into Hobby Talk for a long time. It put a big smile on my face to see that this old debate is *still* alive and well. :lol:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Hell, Gene Roddenberry, Bob Justman, and Matt Jefferies could all come back from the dead, declare with one voice that the bridge faced forward, and there would still be folks who would argue with them.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Hell, Gene Roddenberry, Bob Justman, and Matt Jefferies could all come back from the dead, declare with one voice that the bridge faced forward, and there would still be folks who would argue with them.


Or vice versa.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Captain April said:


> Hell, Gene Roddenberry, Bob Justman, and Matt Jefferies could all come back from the dead, declare with one voice that the bridge faced forward, and there would still be folks who would argue with them.


Well, they _could_...but they'd be wrong. 

Sorry. SORRY! I just couldn't resist!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> Hell, Gene Roddenberry, Bob Justman, and Matt Jefferies could all come back from the dead, declare with one voice that the bridge faced forward, and there would still be folks who would argue with them.


And if they all were to say that the little "nub" is the lift shaft, or that the engine nacelles are where power is generated, or so forth... well, you know the rest.

Be careful about even inferring that you're a "prophet" who can speak on behalf of others... especially when you're talking about something entirely unreal... remember what T'plana'hath says!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The thing is, we _*DO*_ know what those guys thought (well, Justman and Jefferies at least). The bridge faced forwards and they never really fleshed out how the engines worked because they wanted the emphasis on the story and the characters, not gadgets (which is why some scripts point towards the nacelles while others point towards Engineering...hell, they never even nailed down for sure where Engineering was until they were starting up Phase II; how much of that can be traced back to the thought processes during TOS is open to interpretation).


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Captain April said:


> The thing is, we _*DO*_ know what those guys thought (well, Justman and Jefferies at least). The bridge faced forwards and they never really fleshed out how the engines worked because they wanted the emphasis on the story and the characters, not gadgets (which is why some scripts point towards the nacelles while others point towards Engineering...hell, they never even nailed down for sure where Engineering was until they were starting up Phase II; how much of that can be traced back to the thought processes during TOS is open to interpretation).


Well, it appears from various sources there was a point where Roddenberry felt they didn't need a Chief Engineer, around the time they'd shot about half of the first season. That changed pretty quick when Doohan heard about it. 

Nailing down where Engineering was, at least for Phase II (and TMP by default) can likely be attributed to fans working on it, as well as the influence of the FJ blueprints. I *think* the logic of the M/AM core and all that was sussed out by Andrew Probert as part of the 'form follows function' of the external design.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> Well, it appears from various sources there was a point where Roddenberry felt they didn't need a Chief Engineer, around the time they'd shot about half of the first season. That changed pretty quick when Doohan heard about it.
> 
> Nailing down where Engineering was, at least for Phase II (and TMP by default) can likely be attributed to fans working on it, as well as the influence of the FJ blueprints. I *think* the logic of the M/AM core and all that was sussed out by Andrew Probert as part of the 'form follows function' of the external design.


The original 3 main characters were going to be Kirk, Spock and Scotty. Each character woud have been identifiable with the three distinct colors of their shirts and the thought was, a captain would rely on his chief engineer more than a doctor. The chemistry beteen Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly was far stronger than Shatner, Nimoy and Doohan so Scotty was pushed to the background and McCoy was brought forward.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> :beatdeadhorse:


Must . . . get . . . more . . . posts . . . in . . . this . . . thread . . .:drunk:


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Hey. I learned a lot. And got some cool pictures, to boot! I like it when these discussions stay civil and we all play nice. 

But the dang thing _was_ off-center. (hee, hee)


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

kdaracal said:


> I like it when these discussions stay civil and we all play nice.


_Zzzzzzzzzz..._

Actually with an attitude like that you have no business on the Internet.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

:lol:...


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> _Zzzzzzzzzz..._
> 
> Actually with an attitude like that you have no business on the Internet.



Ok. The gloves are off:

I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough, wiper!





 :tongue:


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

kdaracal said:


> Ok. The gloves are off:
> 
> I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough, water!


The gloves are off, eh? Well then, let me be the first to slap you silly for incorrectly quoting Monty Python! You, sir, are an "empty-headed, animal food trough WIPER"!


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> The gloves are off, eh? Well then, let me be the first to slap you silly for incorrectly quoting Monty Python! You, sir, are an "empty-headed, animal food trough WIPER"!


Why do you think he talks with that outrageous accent? :thumbsup:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

kdaracal said:


> Why do you think he talks with that outrageous accent? :thumbsup:


Now, go away before I taunt you a second time...!


----------

