A Funny Thing about Sickbay

[Ssosmcin]

The off-screen fan explanation was that the Connie refits had a modular bridge deck that could be swapped out in Space Dock. It was like a capsule attached to the ship.

Yeahhhhh nah. Movies are a director's playground, so Shatner used the new Enterprise as an excuse to have his bridge upgraded with a lot of touch panels and video screens. But then Nick Meyer wanted a clock, toggle switches and other less advanced stuff.

But I wish our movies had more respect for the settings.

Honestly, I either didn't notice or care because, as I said, I'm no fun at parties and chalked it up to real world concerns. Also there was a three year gap between the two films where anything could have happened. Not to mention the 12 ish years between TMP and TWOK where changes could have been made.

And the bare assed, unpainted all white bridge in the final scene of TVH was merfcifully upgraded. That looked horribly plastic.

And while I'm no fun at parties, I accept the bridge turbolift in TOS doesn't match the big honking cylinder on the outside because nobody watching in 1966 noticed or cared. Not because the bridge is angled 30 degrees - that's just stupid. I don't know why anyone would put an elevator shaft in such an exposed part of the ship anyway. Did I mention that it is a big honking cylinder? It's like as large as two decks. I'm more willing to buy it's the backup elevators that slide into place when one zips away from the bridge, as had been posted on this BBS some time ago. Still 1000 times better than "a 30 degree angle." Jeezus.

 

[Maurice]

The engine room was first used in "The Enemy Within", two eps before "The Naked Time". Granted, it was not as fully fleshed out.

Yeah, that was my mistake. I got the production order goofed up in my head.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Why is the transporter pad arrangement depicted as nonagonal??!

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Why is the transporter pad arrangement depicted as nonagonal??!

Maybe nine pads were in the original blueprints, but when it came time to build, somebody said "Do you know how much these Fresnel lenses cost? Six ought to do it."

 

[Phaser Two]

The engine room was first used in "The Enemy Within", two eps before "The Naked Time". Granted, it was not as fully fleshed out.

And we're not sure which engine room it was . . . .

 

[Maurice]

Maybe nine pads were in the original blueprints, but when it came time to build, somebody said "Do you know how much these Fresnel lenses cost? Six ought to do it."

They possibly thought to increase the number of pads when the sets were rebuilt at Desilu Culver, but it obviously didn't happen.

 

[Takeru]

And while I'm no fun at parties, I accept the bridge turbolift in TOS doesn't match the big honking cylinder on the outside because nobody watching in 1966 noticed or cared. Not because the bridge is angled 30 degrees - that's just stupid. I don't know why anyone would put an elevator shaft in such an exposed part of the ship anyway. Did I mention that it is a big honking cylinder? It's like as large as two decks. I'm more willing to buy it's the backup elevators that slide into place when one zips away from the bridge, as had been posted on this BBS some time ago. Still 1000 times better than "a 30 degree angle." Jeezus.

I'm not sure why the 30 degree angle idea bothers you, the bridge could be upside down with Kirk facing the back of the ship and it wouldn't make a difference thanks to artificial gravity and vliewscreens.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I'm not sure why the 30 degree angle idea bothers you, the bridge could be upside down with Kirk facing the back of the ship and it wouldn't make a difference thanks to artificial gravity and vliewscreens.

Because any human designing a ship would have the bridge facing forwards and doing it otherwise feels bizarre. It makes more sense that the bridge is aligned normally and the big cylinder at the back of the bridge dome has its own reasons for being there.

 

[Maurice]

Must we revisit this tired bridge-facing argument for the zillionth time?

 

[StarCruiser]

Apparently...yes...

 

[Shawnster]

Must we revisit this tired bridge-facing argument for the zillionth time?

We could always talk about the Federation using money or if Starfleet is a military.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I'm not sure why the 30 degree angle idea bothers you, the bridge could be upside down with Kirk facing the back of the ship and it wouldn't make a difference thanks to artificial gravity and vliewscreens.

Because it's stupid.

Because any human designing a ship would have the bridge facing forwards and doing it otherwise feels bizarre. It makes more sense that the bridge is aligned normally and the big cylinder at the back of the bridge dome has its own reasons for being there.

This right here.

Design wise, it makes no sense to angle the bridge to allow for a cylinder to hold the turbo lift we see on screen.

Must we revisit this tired bridge-facing argument for the zillionth time?

60 year old show. Find me something new.

Besides, it's come up recently in my online discussions and is fresh on my brain, so I vented some plasma here.

 

[Grant]

When Kirk mentions "that was a FORWARD lurch" in that episode they move in the appropriate direction not offset.
And in multiple episodes they come to an abrupt stop and they lurch forward -- not at a weird offset angle. That settles it.

 

[scotpens]

When Kirk mentions "that was a FORWARD lurch" in that episode they move in the appropriate direction not offset.
And in multiple episodes they come to an abrupt stop and they lurch forward -- not at a weird offset angle. That settles it.

In a ship that has artificial gravity and inertia-neutralizing force fields, nothing should lurch in any direction. Or rock from side to side. Or shake when hit by a photon torpedo or plasma weapon or whatever. But, hey, drama.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

It takes a second for the inertial dampers to compensate.

 

[StarCruiser]

^ This - I would think that Inertial Dampers would work more quickly on PLANED events (like a course change etc.) than something that is sudden.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Not because the bridge is angled 30 degrees - that's just stupid.

Indeed.

Because any human designing a ship would have the bridge facing forwards and doing it otherwise feels bizarre. It makes more sense that the bridge is aligned normally and the big cylinder at the back of the bridge dome has its own reasons for being there.

Well said.

Because it's stupid.

Agreed.

Design wise, it makes no sense to angle the bridge to allow for a cylinder to hold the turbo lift we see on screen.

Agreed, the Sequel.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

When Kirk mentions "that was a FORWARD lurch" in that episode they move in the appropriate direction not offset.
And in multiple episodes they come to an abrupt stop and they lurch forward -- not at a weird offset angle. That settles it.

"Arena" definitely shows Kirk and Sulu leaning toward the main viewscreen when the ship decelerates.

I recall the "forward lurch" was when Kirk was in Engineering ("The Immunity Syndrome"), and if you go by the Franz Joseph blueprints, I think Shatner might have portrayed a sideways lurch when he hurled himself into the wall. I'd have to break out the episode itself.

Agreed, the Sequel.

Unless I'm forgetting something big, the whole "angled bridge" thing began with Franz Joseph in 1973. He did that because he was following The Making of Star Trek devoutly, and it gives a length of 947 feet for the Enterprise. If the ship is no bigger than that, it's impossible to fit a forward facing bridge in the external housing. The aft cylinder has to contain the elevator— and even then FJ had to cheat a little on the shape of the external bridge housing. Its sides have to be more vertical. His back was against the wall.

Interestingly, the Memory Alpha entry indicates that Jefferies' TMOST drawings were not studio canon, but were done on his own time for use by AMT, to print on a side panel of the kit box. That opens the door to a larger Enterprise, a forward-facing bridge, and it makes more room for internal ceiling heights and whatnot. Just don't give me the preposterous extremes of JJ-Trek. YMMV.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Unless I'm forgetting something big, the whole "angled bridge" thing began with Franz Joseph in 1973.

Which was a nice unofficial book that is a lot of fun to fart around with.

He goes through the trouble of making room for a service corridor, a gangway and a toilet, but doesn't have the wherewithal to think that maybe explaining how there's an immediate turbolift waiting as soon as someone take one would totally cover the cylinder without saying "hey let me angle this by 36 degrees."

He also gets the communicator dimensions wrong also to make room for a 9 volt battery!

The Tech Manual is a gain of salt book for funzies.

 

[scotpens]

Franz Joseph also drew an inaccurate profile view of the Type 2 phaser because he was working from a poor-quality photograph that had a large shadow on it.