Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Okay, Ziz for starters, this..."I did read your whole post, and it basically came off as a nicely worded version of "No matter which way you want the bridge to face, you're equally as wrong as someone who wants it to face the other way"... I'm sorry if I came off to you that way, but I honestly don't see how you could take it that way since I specifically said,"everyone has they're own take on things which is perfectly legit and needs no justification" and this, "Everyone has a right to interpret Star Trek the way they want and to make deck plans however they see fit, and nobody should feel they have to justify what they do! If you want the bridge to face forward and also find some way to stay true to what we saw onscreen, then more power to ya!" How many times to I have to quote myself before you get it? I'm running out of emphasis here! When I quoted the old addage "two wrongs etc." I simply meant to underscore that compounding one design 'fudge' with another and another only takes us further afield from designer intent, that's all. I never said or implied that anyone was 'wrong', how could they it be, none of this is 'real' after all? This is just you reading too much into my post. You obviously feel passionate about your take on the matter, which clouds your judgement, but as I've said in other threads, I have no particular axe to grind on this or any other 'treknical' matter, I just like to put my two quatloos worth in from time to time, and CRA did invite discussion.

And then this,... "just live with the mistake instead of trying to fix it" (That last part was where my mind pulled in the religious reference...read between the lines.)"... First of all, again, I never said anything about living with mistakes instead of trying to fix them, all I did was try to explain why I prefered one solution over another, which has to do with the simplest structural and engineering design considerations rather than the 'just make it fit, damn it!' school of thought. My main point here (which you missed) is that the aproach I prefer has the advantage of internal consistancy (literaly and figuratively) and avoids the rather schitzophrenic apeal to "designer intent" one moment and then the contradictory "the way we saw it onscreen" argument the next moment. And secondly, if this is where you got your religious referance, then I still don't see how? How does living with a mistake instead of fixing it, (which is not what I said, or meant) lead to "pain & suffering=good, happiness=bad"? Aside from having nothing to with the topic, it betrays your overzealous attitude. If contemplating production mistakes in a TV show causes you to experiance pain & suffering, and your happiness comes from one and only one solution to them, then you need help dude.

Moving right along then... "Sinking the bridge a few feet into the hull is no more or less valid than forcing it to be all the way into the dome." I'm cool with a few feet, but half or whole way into deck 2 as some have done, goes against our old bugaboo "designers intent". This does have some utility in answering the 'vulnerability of the bridge' issue, but I personally do not think it out waighs the 'I just don't like it that way factor' for me, so sue me.

And then... "there were several episodes where the turbolift was shown to be capable of lateral movement, so having it cheat sideways 6 feet behind the bridge to get from the door to the tube makes perfect sense."
See, now were getting to 'the simplest most effecient engineering design logic' aproach that I prefer. And thank you for bringing it up, for it may help me illustrate my other main point (which you also missed). So here goes, The fact that the T/L moves lateraly has no bearing on the bridge issue, the T/L shafts have to reach everywhere in the ship, the bridge T/L only has to reach... the bridge! It makes some sense, yes, to slide the T/L over, since none of this is real, if you prefer it that way then it's as good a solution as any. But, it doesn't exactly make perfect sense, to illustrate my point. try this, put yourself in the position of a hypothetical Starfleet Engineer, you're all about efficiancy and using the least complicated method with the minimum waste of materials, because you know that "The more you overstuff the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain". So, with everything being equal, how would you design the bridge? Would you make the T/L open directly on the bridge, or would you slide it over, wasting credits and time making a more complicated structure that serves no practical purpose, in effect, a dunsel? This answers itself. (some one will bring up the refit design, but I'll answer that in the inevitable next post).

And this bit is just silly,... "CRA's solution of sinking the bridge a bit DOES stay true to what we saw on screen - find a shot from any episode that shows that it isn't that way.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Find anything? I didn't think so."

How can I possibly reply to you, in your own post while you're still typing it! Especially when I wasn't even online at the time? You're just being a smart ass, and this is not worth further discussion. I do have an anwser for you however, In the only 'bridge establishing shot' we have from "The Cage", there's no indication that the bridge is sunk, but this is largely irrelavent since the model and it's fictional counterpart were modified afterwards, and there's no other evidence either way, this counters your argument as much as mine, or anyone elses, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as CRA says.

AND, for the not so final nail in the coffin, so to speak, "I quote part of the response to an email I wrote to Richard Jeffries, Matt Jeffries' brother and author of "Beyond The Clouds", his biography of brother Matt's life.

Quote:
It's been interesting to me to comprehend the motivation of so many Trekkies to find some obscure meaning for every aspect of Matt's designs. No question that Matt was a gifted artist with an innovative mind. His U.S.S. Enterprise and Klingon Battle Cruiser are iconic masterpieces. However, he confessed to me that he intentionally allowed for the viewers of Star Trek to use their imaginations rather than having every nut, bolt, and concept explained.
Which is exactly what we're doing - using our imaginations...just like Matt wanted us to.

Yeah, I've got his book it's really good, but most evrybody is familiar with MJ's intentions on the matter since he has said as much in interviews going way back, no surprise there. But you're last point here is moot since I've already explained I'm not trying to stiffle anyones creativity! That's your dead straw horse, not mine.

 

On a couple of occasions, the turbolift was shown to be moving laterally before opening onto the bridge. We've seen it moving sideways, therefore there is no reason the bridge can't be facing forward. It's basically a matter of number crunching and seeing how far things can be pushed in one direction or the other before actual fudging has to begin.

As for the design of the bridge itself, I see a lot of folks talking about the turbolift's "original position" directly behind the captain's chair, yet I have yet to see once scintilla of evidence that the doors were ever anywhere but where we saw 'em. And I've read my fair share of interviews with Matt Jefferies, but have yet to see anything addressing this issue in anything resembling this level of detail.

As was pointed out a while back, that nub was put on the dome for the sake of symmetry, in anticipation of the possibility of having to use those reversed decals to show the other side of the ship. Nobody was trying to make any kind of statement regarding the interior.

And, quite simply, I just don't think that, at the time, it was considered a big enough deal to sweat the discrepancy between the interior and the exterior. Like Richard Jefferies said, they figured the fans could use their imaginations to figure it out.

Hence, why we're here.

Now, my approach does have the dubious advantage of being in line with the thinking of Chairmen Sternbach & Okuda ("dubious" in that some folks consider that reason alone to discount the whole idea, because it dares to conflict with the Holy Writ of St. Franz Joseph), so at least I consider myself to be in pretty good company as far as the fleshing out of this ship goes.

 

OK CRA, I follow you. except on this,
"As was pointed out a while back, that nub was put on the dome for the sake of symmetry, in anticipation of the possibility of having to use those reversed decals to show the other side of the ship. Nobody was trying to make any kind of statement regarding the interior."
Question; who pointed this out, and where's the documentation to this effect? Wasn't the design and working drawings finished before the model was built? And while I can see symmetry being a consideration for not moving the 'nub' after the assumed relocation of the T/L station on the the set, It still does not speak to the fact that both the bridge turbo lift display seen in TOS and the cutaway diagram (from TMOST) seen in TAS, both drawn by MJ, and both showing the T/L shaft in line with the 'nub', pretty much proves that the 'nub' was always intended to be the top of the T/L shaft. So symmetry considerations aside, it was intended to correspond to the interior.

And on this we're in complete agreement;
"I just don't think that, at the time, it was considered a big enough deal to sweat the discrepancy between the interior and the exterior."

But on this I beg to differ;
"Like Richard Jefferies said, they figured the fans could use their imaginations to figure it out."
Umm, more like they figured nobody would notice! Remember, at the time of which we are speaking, there were no Star Trek fans.

P.S. Just for the record, I'm not one of those who consider FJ's stuff to be "Holy Writ", I disagree with with alot of his choices, but I do agree with some others. Like everyone's take on this, it's a mixed bag.

 

There are some indications that when the cross section diagrams that were used on set were drawn up, the ship was still considered around 500+ feet long, with half as many decks as she wound up with. It's also debatable how literal to take those in the first place, since they're general informational displays, not construction blueprints. Certain liberties with details are expected.

As for who raised the "nub is there for symmetry" argument, it was one of the posters around here, who is bound to identify himself at some point in this discussion. Remember, this neverending topic has been running, off and on, for around five years. It's tough to keep track of who raised which point when. The symmetry argument fits, though, with the concept they had of using reversed decals so they could do shots depicting the port side of the ship (only used explicitly once, in "Dagger of the Mind", although one flyby shot, upon close inspection, shows reversed registry numbers on the underside of the primary hull; ironically, in neither case do you have any chance at all of seeing the bridge). For the whole concept to work, the exterior of the ship, at least design-wise, has to be symmetrical.

 

Agreed.
But, being "general informational displays" as you say, they were, after all, meant to convey information! Like perhaps, where the the T/L shafts are? Plus, the fact that one (and perhaps the only) repeated consistency over all the years, in all of MJ's diagrams, including those from TMOST/TAS and even the Phase II (both of which have a more sccurate # of decks) was the placement of the T/L shaft behind the bridge, directly on the centerline. So MJ had plenty of time to think about it, and change his mind, if he wanted to, which he didn't, so this pretty much nails down "designer intent" on this matter, as far as I'm concerned.

Then there's the fact that we see on screen the T/L diagram on the physical set (albeit rarely clearly) and we see on screen the "nub" at the back of the bridge dome (on the centerline of the physical model, corresponding to the diagram) pretty much locks down "the way we saw it on screen" aproach as far as "the nub is supposed to be the top of the T/L shaft" stance goes, IMHO. You can, of course, use the fact that these are small details as a reason to ignore them if you want. After all, were gonna have to compromise somewhere, if were to make any headway at all. But it seems to me, that if we are to be logicaly consistant, then an apeal to both "designer intent" and having it "like we saw on screen" only supports one conclusion and that puts one squarely in "the bridge must be rotated" camp. Of course this goes against what we saw in "The Cage" and MJ's statement to the effect he couldn't see it as facing any other way but forward.

So, where does this leave us concernig the bridge orientation problem as it relates to "The Cage" zoom in shot? I dunno, other than the sad realization that TOS was sometimes (GASP ) inconsistant with itself! Sliding the T/L in and over isn't really an option, IMHO, because there's really not enough room, unless you re-size the ship (again) but this creates more issues than it solves, and this solution as an end in itself does not justify the means. Given the chioce of what to ignore from "on screen" evidence I would opt for the zoom in shot, at least in so far as evidence for the orientation of the bridge is concerned, because this is an optical insert, and does not therefore relate to any real physical relationships, and because, this was the "pilot" episode and by definition, was somewhat of a trial run, and mistakes were made, and things were far from finalized? Suffice it to say that this one shot does not outweigh all the evidence to the contrary suggesting that the bridge must nevertheless be off center?

But you my be right CRA, we'll see how the bigger pilot dome works, this could solve the problem, at least as far as "The Cage" shot is concerned, but again I dunno? I do like the idea -I think it was yours?- of having two T/L cars on the bridge, one opening to the bridge and one to the maintainance corridor. If it does work then we're still stuck with the smaller dome of the production version of the ship, but perhaps this is where the "sink the bridge for better protection" theory comes in (but not by a whole deck)? This could even explain when and how the fictional bridge got rotated some 30 degrees during the refit, since the lack of room in the now smaller dome would necessitate such an imperfect solution?

I was just wondering if there was any documentation to that effect, or if this was just fan speculation? Because as such, it doesn't hold any more water than the "T/L doors were moved" theory. And yeah, I'm familiar with the whole "flip the image" trick used in TOS, it's just that the whole "nub is there for symmetry" theory is largely erelevant, for as I hope I have demonstrated above, the nub is supposed to be the top of the T/L shaft regardless, and it's position isn't really the issue since there's no self-inconsistancy here. It's the T/L alcove on the bridge and it's relationship to the orientation of the bridge relelative to that "nub", and what to do about it, that is the issue here.

 

For the sake of convenient nitpicking, that nub is never identified in any contemporary drawings from Jefferies. Not as the turbolift housing, not as an outhouse, no identification at all.

Again, it's likely to have been intended as the outer turbolift housing, but since they never identified it as such, and, let's be fair, there were a lot of things he intended that got switched around by the writers and producers, it's a useful out to call it something else and not contradict a thing.

So far, it appears that Shaw's estimates of how wide the pilot dome was is even a scrunch bigger than my estimates, so my idea might work even better than originally thought. Or even keep it as the turbolift housing while adding a little maneuvering room for the turbolift car.

As for rotating the bridge, as far as this project is concerned, the entire issue is a nonstarter. At no time did those on the show ever consider the bridge to have been rotated, so neither will I. It faced forward, from "The Cage" to "Turnabout Intruder" and on through the animated episodes.

The only thing to do is to figure out how.

 

Perhaps you've already considered this, but the simplest solution to me has always been to face the bridge forward, keep the turbolift as seen onscreen, and move the nub on the exterior to match the turbolift position. It doesn't have to be symmetrically placed. There are asymmetrical features on other starships.

 

Yeah, it's been consisdered, and sure, it's as good a solution as any I suppose, it's just not one I favor for all the reasons I mentioned above.

'Edit': Also, I guess alot depends on whether one is interested in the technical details, or just wants a quick mental fix and then get on with enjoying the show? Both aproaches are equally valid. But for those of us interested in the tech and/or contemplating our own (or others) blueprints, then the devil is in the details, and I think we need to hold to a higher standard of consistancy when it comes to the inevitable compromises, and always keep in mind that we're working with what we have, not re-inventing the wheel, so to speak.

 

Another aspect of this project is to not alter anything, interior or exterior, unless absolutely necessary (like the various tweaks that have been done to come up with a version of the shuttlecraft that reasonably fits both the oversized interior and undersized exterior).

One thing that Andrew Probert brought up (and was already explored, rejected, but may be revisited) is questioning the whole idea that the bridge has to be centered under the dome. Who's to say it isn't slid forward a tad? If nothing else, it's a useful last-ditch fix, and does kind of go with a mid-60's aesthetic.

 

I debated whether or not to post a reply, but in the interests of nitpicking, here goes...

This is where I believe MJ " allowed viewers to to use their imaginations instead of having every nut, bolt, and concept explained" In other words he wanted us to put 2 + 2 together and conclude that the 'nub' was the top of the T/L shaft?! But by you're logic, 2 +2 = 5 or 10 or 20, anything but 4?!

Except maybe, common sense? Since you're willing to concede that it's likely the outer shaft housing, and yet you conveniantly ignore this anyway! You do realize, of course, that this forfeits your right to use "designer intent" as an argument in support of anything else, up to and including a foreward facing bridge?! You can't have it both ways CRA.
And if you're are going to be "fair" and say "there were lots of things he intended that got switched around by the writers and producers" then why not concede this includes the direction the bridge faces?

Agreed, this is my estimate also.

If this issue is a "nonstarter" and you're unwilling to compromise, then why invite discussion? If you're willing to dismiss designer intent on other points, then why not on this? And that "At no time did those on the show ever consider the bridge to have been rotated, so neither will I." is hardly conclusive since it's mere speculation, and if we're allowed to speculate, then why not assume they didn't give it much thought either way, and were in all likelihood, blissfully unaware that there was any discrepancy in the first place? Also, only MJ, and perhaps Pato Guzman, would likely know that the bridge set didn't match up with the models bridge dome oreintation?

I'm trying to meet you half way CRA, but you're not making it easy.
Since we only saw a forward facing bridge in "The Cage" and only in that configuration could we have a forward facing bridge, and the smaller dome of the production version procludes this arangement, we are justified in considering that the bridge may have been rotated later (fictionaly speaking)? Also we have no evidence to the contrary, barring the occasional exception to the rule, showing the T/L sliding over at the bridge, instead of opening directly as we know it was intended to (and those on the show knew it was intended to)! Besides appealing to such "mistakes" in an attempt to "fix" others, doesn't "solve" the problem, it only makes it worse.

Just trying to keep you on your toes pal.

 

That's all I been sayin all along, Bro!

 

"Creator's intent" only gets you so far when you're dealing with more than one "creator", like we have here with the Enterprise. Jefferies had his input, the various writers had their contributions, the story editors put in their two cents' worth, and we're stuck with sorting out the end product. So, there's a lot of picking and choosing, and sometimes you face the likelihood that nobody's right and you pull something out of a hat that makes more sense than anything anyone else has on the table.

If I recall, the initial debate in these threads over the bridge orientation and placement took the better part of a year, or at least felt like it, with the final solution giving us, essentially, a bridge module, which was fully visible during the pilots, but was lowered about halfway inside the teardrop structure, with the only real change inside being the elimination of that circular briefing room directly below. This accommodates a forward facing bridge, maintains it's position as the highest occupied part of the ship (it's still slightly higher than Deck 2), and also addresses a long time pet peeve of some fans, the vulnerability of the bridge.

As for that nub to which you attach so much significance, consider the dome in the pilots. The difference between the top of the nub and the top of the dome is the same as it is on the production version, yet that zoom-in we see in "The Cage" makes it pretty clear that the turbolift opens over on the port side, and there's nothing for a turbolift car to open up to that high up anyway, so why would a turbolift tube be reaching up that damn high?

How about if it's not a turbolift tube in the first place, and instead, something equally as vital and needing a position high up on the hull and an unobstructed view of space? Like the subspace radio transceiver array?

It's not unlike the approach I took with Engineering, and concluding that the big glowing tube assembly wasn't a set of conduits to the nacelles nor was it the guts of the impulse engines, but rather a power distribution manifold that fed power to both systems from the matter/antimatter reactor. This took care of the various script references that seemed to go both ways as to where Engineering was, up in the saucer or down in the secondary hull, as well as allowing me to put Engineering anywhere I wanted.

 

Not taking sides in this debate but the Cage shot is just a primitive matte that doesn't prove anything. The turbolift is not lined up but the bridge also isn't facing forward.



As for the purpose of the nub, one should remember that when MJ was redesigning the Ent for Phase II, he added a second nub for a bridge with two turbolifts. Not proof but it does give insight into what MJ was thinking..


(edit: changed the adjective on matte from "bad" to "primitive": a product of the limits of the technology and not the efforts of the artists involved.)

 

Agreed.

Agreed. (except for the Forward facing bridge after the pilots)

BEEEEEP! And we were doing so well.

If I understand your meaning, your complaint is that at that time the nub was higher than a T/L car? OK, easy enough, maybe the shaft reaches up to allow access to the "deck 0" sensor dome? Or, and I think you'll like this one, Maybe the top few feet or so, house other additional equipment, like the subspace radio transceiver array on which you attach so much significance? As for the T/L opening on to the port side, I've already said I could accept that as long as another on the starboard side opened to the service corridor.

Agreed, I always thought that "the big glowing tube assembly" thingy looked like a power distribution manifold, so we reach!

WOO-HOO! IDIC RULES!!!!

 

Actually, I've cooked up several different bridge configurations that one might encounter on any given starship, depending on mission profile, captain's preference, etc. I'll see if I can dig up the pics, but the quick rundown consists of:

1. the turbolift where we've always seen it
2. directly behind the captain's chair
3. the doors and the library computer station swapped
4. two sets of doors (ala the TMP bridge)
5. or the real whopper, three sets of doors along the back side.

Not sure why anyone would want that last setup, but it's an option.

The one consistent feature in all of them is the turboshaft forming an arc along the backside, and the maintenance corridor completing the circle around the bridge.

Access to the maintenance corridor would only require rotating the turbolift cab ninety degrees to either direction at either end of the turboshaft arc.

As for the effect in "The Cage", the idea is pretty clear, and in the remastered version, everything lines up just fine. Except for that nub, of course.

 

^^ Yeah, I know, there's a site like your talking about, some cool ideas there, but others stretch credibility a bit.

As far as "Access to the maintenance corridor would only require rotating the turbolift cab ninety degrees to either direction at either end of the turboshaft arc." I already considered this, and it's not necessarily a deal breaker, it would still be an option even with another T/L on the starboard (or port?) side for M/C access. The main advantage of having another cab "dedicated" for M/C access, other than it provides some rationale for why the shaft would/should move laterally upon reaching the bridge in the first place, is that it would also provide the much needed spare T/L for such a strategic location!

As for "The Cage" shot, the problem is, it really only proves what we knew all along and was never in dispute, that is, that the bridge was intended to face forward. But since it's an optical insert, and therefore bears no real physical relationship between the inside and outside of the ship, (either real or imaginary) it doesn't prove anything about how this miss-match might fit together and still work somehow?

 

It does establish, though, that the bridge faces forward, and given the amount of thought and setting up that shot required, even to get it as close as they did originally, means they gave it some amount of thought as to where the damn thing is and which way it faces.

Frankly, I think Matt Jefferies would be laughing his ass off over how we're quibbling over this one aspect, and immensely pleased that we're using our imaginations over how this all fits together. I'm not sure how he'd think about the notion that he'd ever face the bridge of a ship anywhere but straight ahead, though.

I'd love to get some feedback from his brothers. His brother John should have some extra insight on this matter, since he also worked on TOS.

 

Laughing AT us, no doubt.

 

I wouldn't worry so much about insulting the efforts of the mattework. They could have done a much better job (see 2001, made only four years latter, and that's just the first example I can think of ATM,) it was simply a matter of cost (which they blew on practical sets and models beforehand).

 

I doubt Jeff Hunter came cheap, either.