TOS Enterprise WIP

[Gagarin]

Can we just pretend that, in general, the lift position didn't change in TOS? Pretty sure it wasn't intended - just a camera and set positioning snafu with the wild sections (or were they not wild at that point?). =)

[Albertese]

Well, what happened in real life is that the bridge set was set up for filming "The Cage," stored while the network was making up it's mind, reassembled (differently) for the filming of the second pilot and then broken down again and moved to the studio where the production would actually be made (a totally different stage area (Actually a whole different lot IIRC, but I might be wrong)) and reassembled for the final time, this time in a third configuration that stayed more or less the same for all three production seasons. So it wasn't just a screw up of the wild sections. As far as I know, they were always placed in the right order throughout the show. If that's not true and someone has an example of a section is the wrong place I'd like to see it, but I'm not aware of anything like that.

I do find myself looking as the middle row of blinking lights a lot during shots on the bridge and at least Spock's, Uhura's and Scotty's stations are always in the right spots. I know because I recognize the displays, I'm not as familiar with the other ones, though.

--Alex

[Albertese]

Well, what happened in real life is that the bridge set was set up for filming "The Cage," stored while the network was making up it's mind, reassembled (differently) for the filming of the second pilot and then broken down again and moved to the studio where the production would actually be made (a totally different stage area (Actually a whole different lot IIRC, but I might be wrong)) and reassembled for the final time, this time in a third configuration that stayed more or less the same for all three production seasons. So it wasn't just a screw up of the wild sections. As far as I know, they were always placed in the right order throughout the show. If that's not true and someone has an example of a section is the wrong place I'd like to see it, but I'm not aware of anything like that.

I do find myself looking as the middle row of blinking lights a lot during shots on the bridge and at least Spock's, Uhura's and Scotty's stations are always in the right spots. I know because I recognize the displays, I'm not as familiar with the other ones, though.

--Alex

[blssdwlf]

@Albertese - for some reason I thought "The Cage" bridge wasn't wild like WNMHGB and regular season bridge which was a new build with wild sections?

[blssdwlf]

So looking more at the WNMHGB bridge, it seems that it's a little more complicated.

If I use the main viewer as the reference point for being forward centerline, then the turbolift position didn't change between The Cage and S1. The helm station and Captain chair just happen to be rotated to their right 18 degrees.

If I use the Captain's chair and Helm station are the basis for the forward facing, the turbolift is moved closer to centerline by 18 degrees and the main viewer is moved off centerline by 18 degrees to their left.

Interestingly, it appears to be very deliberate as the forward left railing is shorter in length to accommodate the more "compressed" port side of the bridge. Since we don't see parts of the forward starboard bridge, perhaps extra equipment was installed their for their extra-galactic mission pushing everything to the portside?

[circusdog]

Mytran wrote:

---

I don't have the video of WNMHGB to hand

There is an interesting shot where Kirk, Spock and Mitchell exit the turbolift onto the bridge and for a moment you can see that the consoles are supposed to appear symmetrical about the forward viewscreen:



And a shot of Spock at the "end console":

They probably move the console out of the way to make room for the cameras.

[blssdwlf]

circusdog wrote:

---

There is an interesting shot where Kirk, Spock and Mitchell exit the turbolift onto the bridge and for a moment you can see that the consoles are supposed to appear symmetrical about the forward viewscreen:

This is actually a good shot to look at. Notice that the helm station/captain's chair is pointing to the right of the main viewer. Mitchell's station is actually facing the forward starboard railing...

EDIT: Thinking of a person driving a car... it's almost like someone thought, since the driver (helmsman) is on the left, why not shift the viewer over to the left?

Thanks for the screencaps! I've updated my diagram to reflect the briefly visible station

circusdog wrote:

---

They probably move the console out of the way to make room for the cameras.

Agreed on the console next to Spock.

[circusdog]

Kind of makes you wonder what's behind the "window" in this shot from "The Cage":

[publiusr]

You would have to scale up the Jefferies bevel version for the bridge blister to match FJs blueprint, leading to a largers vessel, which would be fine--a follow on to Constitution perhaps. BTW the FJ tech manual version seems to be the Matt Jefferies sketch, but even simpler.

Don't know if you have seen this yet:
http://the-grey-ghost.com/wp-content...e-drawing1.jpg

[Gagarin]

I bet only shooting from one side sped up the bridge scenes - that set had some problems as originally built (according to the books).

[blssdwlf]

It probably did make it easier to shoot from one side. The WNMHGB configuration is definitely the most unique for the TOS ship

[MGagen]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

The bridge fits perfectly well in my version. And my version is 1067' in length. So I disagree with that comment.

Your ideal scale is a hair over 2% larger than 947' -- Given the references available for the size of the bridge set and the exterior dome, this is well within the margin of error. It is hardly conclusive enough to support an uncompromising rejection of the originally stated length. Either figure may work. We just know one of them was stated by the designer.

This is an argument that gets a whole lot of "absolutist" focus from some folks... ie, they say that "947' is the correct length and you'd better accept it. If you don't, you're WRONG-WRONG-WRONG."

Not sure who you're arguing with, here. I began and ended my post with an acknowledgment that everyone is free to imagine an Enterprise of whatever size they wish. I was merely responding to a post that maintained that the hangar deck was the only reasonable driver for finding the scale of the ship. I made a well reasoned argument for why the bridge is a more reliable guide.

And at the very least, MJ's original figure of 947' is not "silly." Neither are those of us who prefer his scale. That is all I have to say about the matter.

M.

[MGagen]

blssdwlf wrote:

---

That correlation for the turbolift location(s) only works if there was a consistency to it. Since you referenced Phase II, I'll reference the TOS movies... [snip]

I was only addressing the original Enterprise scale. My reference to the Phase II design was merely to prove that MJ intended that exterior tube to be the turbo housing. Jefferies' involvement ended with his Phase II design. Anything beyond that is irrelevant to my argument.

Please don't misunderstand my point. I was taking issue with your statement "There is nothing that ties the bridge to an external feature for scaling purposes." I was not saying you should change the size of your model.

I am greatly enjoying your project.

M.

[Tallguy]

Cary L. Brown wrote:

---

I've always assumed that Kirk inherited the Enteprise which was largely unchanged from how it was under Pike's command (and which had a crew of about 200).

The encounter with the barrier just trashed the ship, and as a result, while the ship was able to LIMP back to Federation space using scavenged components from a mining facility, the damage was very severe and the ship had to undergo a full refitting.

I've always said that the "WNMHGB" ship was still the "all military" version of the ship, a heavy cruiser mainly dedicated to security operations, not long-range exploration. There were likely quite a few of these, not merely twelve.

But twelve were refit and relaunched as "explorers." The advent of replicator technology (food slots, quartermaster department requirements, spare parts manufacturing, etc) freed up a large amount of what was previously cargo space aboard this ship, and they basically put a full science vessel's complement of personnel and facilities into the freed up space. The Enterprise, and twelve other heavy cruisers, became the first "exploratory cruisers" and were simultaneously launched on a widely-publicized "five year exploratory mission" with great fanfare. When the Enterprise was the only ship to return, fully intact, from that mission, Starfleet elected to make the Enterprise insignia that of the entire Starfleet. (That, and I'm sure they were getting sick of coming up with custom insignia for every single ship they launched!)

So, there was likely at least a year between WNMHGB and The Corbomite Manuever. While the outside of the ship was mostly unchanged, the internal configuration was altered almost as dramatically as it was during the eighteen months prior to ST-TMP.

You know, that's almost exactly how I see it. Cool.

Except for the "military" part. 1) I don't think the Enterprise's defensive role changed a jot. And in TOS we see the E lugging around ambassadors / officials / colonists / performing police work just as much as Kirk mentions in WNMHGB. Roddenberry's stated mission for the Enterprise is an old "Hornblower" style ship of the line. Which means you do it all because you're the only one out there.

Plus: The only time we see crew people (or civilians?) out of uniform is in the two pilots. Shades of the Galaxy class!

[Cary L. Brown]

MGagen wrote:

---

Your ideal scale is a hair over 2% larger than 947' -- Given the references available for the size of the bridge set and the exterior dome, this is well within the margin of error. It is hardly conclusive enough to support an uncompromising rejection of the originally stated length. Either figure may work. We just know one of them was stated by the designer.

Not really true... (1067-947)/947 * 100 = 12.7%. Pretty far from 2%.

I did alter one detail... I made my lift shaft tube a bit taller than was on the production version of the ship, as well as having it straight, and of a constant diameter (the part on the miniature is pretty crude, really, and seems to have been just sort of "stuck on and puttied" without too much care for precision). It's not really too noticeable, but it's a compromise I made with full admission that I was deviating from the real miniature.

Not sure who you're arguing with, here. I began and ended my post with an acknowledgment that everyone is free to imagine an Enterprise of whatever size they wish.

Not "arguing" so much as "discussing."

You posted the comment about the bridge sizing, so I was replying to you in that regard, but I'm not "arguing" with you. just tossing out comments about the issue we're discussing.

I was merely responding to a post that maintained that the hangar deck was the only reasonable driver for finding the scale of the ship. I made a well reasoned argument for why the bridge is a more reliable guide.

Yes, you did. I didn't agree with that particular conclusion, however, based upon my own work, but that's another case of "your mileage may vary."

I find it odd, sometimes, how people seem to read in "intent" to posts on the 'net. It's a discussion... it seems sort of "dead" to say that nobody can argue opposing points.

And at the very least, MJ's original figure of 947' is not "silly." Neither are those of us who prefer his scale. That is all I have to say about the matter.

Don't misquote me... what I said was only that those who treat that number as some sort of "holy article of faith" are being a bit silly, not that it's silly to prefer it. Nor was I necessarily attributing that to you... quite the contrary, in fact. As you said, you did make it quite clear that you don't have a "religious level of ferver" about this... and my comment was thus clearly not directed towards you.

There are a few people who actually get ANGRY if you question the "holy 947'" however... on the same level as if you'd suggested re-editing the entire TOS series to use the JJ-Prise instead of the TOS ship, as if a small shift in scale (which, I would argue, helps things match up better) is somehow on the same level as a total eradication of the original series design.

THOSE people are... yes, silly. I'd hope you'd agree.