Is the bridge at a funny angle?
- Thread starter Mike Doyle
- Start date
Oh I agree, I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but just myself 'exploring ideas' by commenting on the coincidence of design -if that is indeed what it is.
There is a "cockpit" style sketch which various websites list as and early bridge design which, if that is what it is, is very early and looks nothing like the final design.
Not the one from "Starship" that is commonly mistaken for Trek, is it?
^ ^ No, the one I'm thinking of was just a sketch, not a color rendering or painting. it show's a cross section of a console and a figure sitting in a chair. In fact, it looks a lot like the story board for the control cabin of the hyperspace carrier Pegasus from George Pal's proposed War of the Worlds TV series, which is what I suspect it's likely to be, since Jefferies worked on that project, and some of his other sketches are also for that project, and not for Star Trek.
On the other hand, Jefferies was fond of reusing ideas; for example, his Pegasus design itself is just his earlier Leif Erickson design turned upside down and slightly modified, so maybe the sketch for the 'bridge' was originally for star trek after all?
On the other hand, Jefferies was fond of reusing ideas; for example, his Pegasus design itself is just his earlier Leif Erickson design turned upside down and slightly modified, so maybe the sketch for the 'bridge' was originally for star trek after all?
I wouldn't put too much stock in the smaller image's relative scale.Was it this?
It's pretty consistent with an Enterprise of around 500' long
Also, no captain's seat - presumably he would have sat at one of the two pilot's chairs
Or maybe there was no Captain's chair in this concept.
if it is rotated it would be by 35.5 degrees, assuming we believe what's on our TV screens
@ Mytran: No, that’s not it either, but I agree with Maurice and advise caution interpreting the little side sketch there. However, that being said, I’m going to throw caution to the wind and proceed anyway.
The most interesting feature (to me) of this little side sketch is that Jefferies includes the exterior sensor dome. So this begs the question as to why would he do this, what was going through his mind?
It may be relevant that various attempts to show how the bridge would fit in the dome by various fans consistently show that the upper circular edge of the bridge set, where the edge of the ceiling would be-if it had one- is close to the same diameter of the exterior bridge sensor dome.
This suggests perhaps, that Jefferies may have assumed that the diameter of the sensor dome should be the same as the bridge’s ‘ceiling’ and used this as a common reference point for scale between the interior set and exterior dome? But again, this is just speculation.
It is interesting that when the sensor dome on the side sketch is taken into account it makes the cross section of the bridge about the right size to fit the smaller bridge dome of the 540 ft. scale Enterprise. But whether this is a coincidence or not is hard to say.
Also, the little side sketch seems to be roughly three times smaller that the larger scale drawing on the left, but whether this indicates Jefferies intent, and therefore whether this could, or should, be used to derive an approximate scale, is anybody’s guess.
The most interesting feature (to me) of this little side sketch is that Jefferies includes the exterior sensor dome. So this begs the question as to why would he do this, what was going through his mind?
It may be relevant that various attempts to show how the bridge would fit in the dome by various fans consistently show that the upper circular edge of the bridge set, where the edge of the ceiling would be-if it had one- is close to the same diameter of the exterior bridge sensor dome.
This suggests perhaps, that Jefferies may have assumed that the diameter of the sensor dome should be the same as the bridge’s ‘ceiling’ and used this as a common reference point for scale between the interior set and exterior dome? But again, this is just speculation.
It is interesting that when the sensor dome on the side sketch is taken into account it makes the cross section of the bridge about the right size to fit the smaller bridge dome of the 540 ft. scale Enterprise. But whether this is a coincidence or not is hard to say.
Also, the little side sketch seems to be roughly three times smaller that the larger scale drawing on the left, but whether this indicates Jefferies intent, and therefore whether this could, or should, be used to derive an approximate scale, is anybody’s guess.
Since these were early sketches and the final product would significantly different, a little speculation is just all in good fun
I'm in
At the very least, your observation about the sensor dome is extremely compelling
Being someone who thinks the appearance of the ship can change based on how it appeared in the original effects is a benefit here. (Bridge can raise and lower, nacelle spikes extend/retract, balls on the aft ends of the nacelles retract and expose the vents, etc.)
If the bridge rotates to raise higher or lower itself down, much of this could be explained. For example, perhaps the "pilot" configuration of the Bridge ("taller" dome) has the view-screen forward, but the "series" configuration ("shorter" dome) has the bridge rotated to the ~36-degree offset, or vice versa. Just an idea, but one that works to explain some concerns.
I noticed something the other night while rewatching TMP. In our first scene on the refitted bridge we see lots of crew working to get the ship ready for departure and we see a guy whose legs are hanging out of the ceiling, standing on a hover disc and also another guy handing off some equipment to an unseen person above frame. All of this suggests to me that there must be a generous crawlspace, or even "attic" above the refit bridge. Assuming the ship is more or less similarly sized from its TOS configuration, we might use this as evidence of a bridge deck sunk enough below the outer hull that the turbolifts don't penetrate the hull and the bridge viewscreen may as well face forward.
I'm personally more and more leaning towards a bigger ship than 947'. Exactly how much bigger I have yet to determine. Looks like I have an impending Trek Tech project in my future...
--Alex
I'm personally more and more leaning towards a bigger ship than 947'. Exactly how much bigger I have yet to determine. Looks like I have an impending Trek Tech project in my future...
--Alex
Has anyone every worked out the bridge placement based on using this for the scale?
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x16/The_Galileo_Seven_014.JPG
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x16/The_Galileo_Seven_014.JPG
Just to be clear, I am not talking about scaling the Hangar to the ship but scaling the ship to the Hangar as shown on screen.@MGagen has done some of my favorite scaling of the hangar bay and the bridge to fit inside the ship in the past, but I don't want to steal his thunder.
We know from Datin's book that the flight deck miniature was 122" long and built at 1/12 scale
Curiously that almost exactly matches Matt Jefferies sketch which depicts the flight deck (of a different design) at 120 feet in length (from rear wall to doors) and would demand an Enterprise 1,350 feet long:
The extra 2 feet on the model would probably be for the short amount of deck outside the clamshells
Never noticed this until now, but those doors on each side of the hangar deck don't appear to lead anywhere based upon all the deck plans I've seen, as well as the layout of the ship. If anything, those big doors can only lead to very narrow passageways along the hull.
Similar threads
