Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Possibly. The fact is, he appreciated imagination far more than relative skill. In the tribute video on the 2-disc version of Generations (the only reason I got the thing), Jefferies talks about the one time he got roped into being a judge at a convention model contest and how he bypassed a whole bushel of professional-quality models, which were really only rearrangements of the familiar components of saucer, nacelles, etc, in favor of one by some kid whose model making skills were still pretty rough, but at least showed a degree of imagination in his designwork. Suffice it to say that the pro-level modelers were ready to lynch ol' Matt and he swore to never get into that situation again.

The one regret I've had throughout this project is that I didn't make a move to contact Mr. Jefferies earlier than when the idea came up(actually, it was during a relatively early stage and Aridas Sofia and I were going back and forth on some issue, I forget who suggested getting ahold of MJ first, but I had just started the process of trying to track him down, I think I got as far as finding his address, when the news broke that he'd passed). I'd still be tickled if one of his brothers could throw in their two cents' worth.

 

Well what they were attempting was difficult at the time, trying to synchronize the movements of two cameras (Star Wars and motion control was still a decade or so away.) If you look at 2001, you will find that in a lot of the FX shots involving mattes, one or both of the cameras are "locked down."

Could the shot have been better? Perhaps.

Does it stand as absolute proof that the bridge is oriented one way or the other?
No.

The center of the live-action bridge and the center of the model's dome are not even lined up. The different camera lenses and shooting angles create separate vanishing points and horizon lines for the internal and external shots. IOW, the sequence is full of "errors" that disqualifies it as proof of anything related to the current discussion.

As for whether the shot was meant to establish the fact that the bridge was facing directly forward, well, you tend to see what you want to see. My reading of those tealeaves is that there was never an intent to be so precise; that the shot was purposed to show, to the audience, the size and relationship of the ship and its crew; and that the folks making the pilot were probably happy the shot worked as well as it did.

 

^^ Agreed, well said.

 

Parsing things to that degree only to prove that they didn't nail anything down? Good grief, you can tell that just from the frelling scripts!

 

Now now, mon capitan. You've been known to parse things to that degree, and then some, when it suits your purpose. Besides, when one considers how often in ST (TOS in particular) that the FX doesn't match creator intent and/or online dialogue, it's fair to take the bridge matte shot with a big grain of salt.

One of the best examples of what I'm talking about is in "Day of the Dove" when the dialogue (per "creator intent") clearly favors a TMOST (and later FJ) arangement of decks and engine room location, but then the FX at the end of the ep contradicts this by showing the entity leaving the engine room through the secondary hull! Even as late as "In a Mirror Darkly" the creative team carefully considered where they wanted the aft phasers/photon torpedos to fire from, and told the FX crew, only to be surprised that it ended up being some other location (the "homing beacon") instead!

You'll no doubt say that we're nevertheless still stuck with the final product as we saw it, but all the above just underscores my point as to why putting too much emphasis on "the way we saw it", especially as ultimate "proof" of creator intent -and the resultant unwillingness to compromise that follows- only locks us into a conceptual box that does more to stifle creativity than anything else.

Now, I've no doubt that Ideally the bridge should face forwards, and certainly MJ felt the same way, but as you say, many people were involved in the final product, and things got switched around, so the question is; shouldn't we keep all options on the table before making up our minds, then pick the one that does the least amount of further damage, even if it's not a perfect solution (which isn't going to happen anyway)?

 

Again, nobody on the show ever considered the bridge to be facing off to port. That is purely an after-the-fact FJ rationalization. There are no Jefferies drawings showing the relationship between the interior and exterior, aside from a very non-specific cross section of the entire ship on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet.



Shrink my cross section down to that size and you get about the same level of detail, i.e., not much.

In fact, if we're gonna hang any level of importance to that particular drawing, Jefferies also has the bridge sunken, almost down to the same level I have.

 

Oh' CRA you're just too much fun!
I'm not trying to change your mind, you've made it abundantly clear that your mind was made up before you even started your project, and you're not gonna back down no matter what anybody says.
My point all along has been, that if you feel in your heart of hearts that the bridge must always face forward, regardless of all evidence indicating that this could not be so, then you don't need to justify your position, just say "This is my baby and I want it to look like I want it to!" Nobody should have a problem with this.
It's when you try to prop up your position with a witch's brew of fan speculation, selective data analysis, and the few facts we have, and then top this off with value judgements as to the relevancy (or lack thereof) of all these ingrediants, and what 'counts' or 'doesn't count' as evidence, that you open yourself up to due criticism.
This is why discussions like this never end, because there is no single 'right' answer, for every point you make, there's a counterpoint to be made. As long were all having fun and can agree on a few 'ground rules' then we can continue?

So in that spirit, here we go...

Not that old straw man again!
Unless you have some kind of poll or survey that you, or someone else, has taken to prove otherwise, then this is, and remains, just (your) fan speculation! I've already pointed this out, and since you discount my fan speculation as irrelevant, then this rule applies to you as well. So henceforth we shall refrain from citing any fan speculation as "evidence" or "proof" of anything! Besides, even if such a consensus existed, these are hardly the people we should look to for authority an the matter, since they likely niether knew nor cared about the issue of the bridge miss-match, they weren't trying to make logical deck plans, we are.

As for this "That is purely an after-the-fact FJ rationalization." First of all, everything everybody does in this regard is an "after-the-fact rationalization", that's kinda the point isn't it? Second of all, FJ is not the only one who has prefered this solution. Many others who have considered this problem when drawing up their workable deck plans, have conceded that -while not a perfect solution- this is nonetheless the best, not because they want to honor FJ, but because this solution is the simplest one, that does the least amount of additional damage to the facts as we already know them!
Third of all, Since many have prefered the offset bridge solution, why do you single out FJ? He was merely the first to produce a complete set of publicly available deck plans, this doesn't mean he was the first one to notice the discrepancy, or choose this particular solution! So why assume everybody is copying him?
Given your penchent for dissing FJ in this and other threads, I think I know now why you insist the bridge must only and ever face forward, it has nothing to do with the pros and cons of the evidence, you just don't want to admit that FJ might have done the right thing, and chose the best all around solution to the problem? But since the offset bridge solution is not original or unique to FJ, you're now free to look at the problem in a fresh light, and so henceforth we will refrain from cosidering FJ's presumed authority to add weight for or against this problem.

Now as to MJ's diagram.
Why, in discussions like this, do you guys always feel the need to underscore how small the original was???
It's big enough to get the pertainant information we need -and MJ intended- across, so the exact size of the original is irrelevant.
It does show, yet again, that the main T/L shaft is right on the centerline, corroborating everything else we know! This diagram was seen "onscreen" in TAS, and if TAS was considered important enough for the remastered team to mine for tech gems, then it's good enough for me. And since you use TAS to bolster your arguments, then I'm allowed to do the same.

Yes, it shows the bridge about a third of the way down, and suggests MJ was attempting to deal with the consequences of the now lowered bridge dome. but the turboshaft is still the tutboshaft and the "nub" is still the T/L housing, no need to re-invent these! But even in this configuration, there's not enough room for the lift to slide over, not if it's to remain 'imbeded' and hence undetectable from the outside. And besides I already said I'm cool with a sunken bridge as long as it's not carried to extremes. So, I'm not sure how pointing this out helps your case much?

 

Show me someone who posited that the bridge faced thirty-some degrees to port before FJ put out his blueprints.

 

What you're really asking is for someone to show where it was officially posited that the bridge was offset. It's not a great leap of the imagination to think the nub on the outside of the bridge dome is for the turbolift, and for the turbolift to be in there one has to rotate the bridge we saw on-screen. Unless you ignore the relatively obvious purpose for the nub (or the layout of the bridge as shown on-screen) you have to rotate the bridge to fit. So, I'm sure many people posited it before FJ. They just didn't publish a book about it.

The question I've always had is why have a nub in the first place? Why leave the turbolift shaft exposed on the exterior of the ship inside the nub instead of having the bridge dome envelope/protect it? But, a question for another day I suppose.

 

^^ AudioBridge is correct, you know full well CRA, that FJ pioneered this format in publishing, so obviously there are no previously published examples. But I will show you someone who had the idea before FJ, that someone is ME! When I was just a wee lad, long before I had ever heard of FJ, or TMOST, I was playing with my AMT model kits of the Enterprise and bridge, and having already surmised from watching the show that the nub at the back of the bridge dome was the T/L housing that accessed the bridge, I decided to turn my bridge model so that the T/L alcove lined up with the nub at the back of the dome on my Enterprise model, and it was then that I realized the horrible truth!
This confused me, for I had of course, always naturally assumed the bridge faced forward. At the time it did not occur to me that this could be a mistake, but seeing is believing, so I assumed there must be a good reason for it, I just couldn't figure out what it was. It was not untill years later, after realizing it was a mistake after all, that I considered other alternatives, only to reject them after due consideration. It was only later still, when I was in my mid teens, that I first saw the Tech Manuel, and so was not surprised to see the same bridge arrangement there.
So, I'm sure if this accured to me it must have to other people as well?

P.S. almost forgot, AudioBridge, I think maybe it was MJ's intention that the audience make the connection that the nub is the T/L, and thereby give some indication of scale, thus it had to be visable?

 

Digging through the archives, I dug up this ditty, from back when the last time this debate raged.....



That's how much room you need for the bridge to comfortably face forward, about 47 1/2 feet, with it centered under the dome (which is a fairly big assumption all by itself; who says it's perfectly centered? Nudge it forward a few feet and you've got all kinds of room, while adding a certain kitchy 60's vibe to the whole thing).

By coincidence, this corresponds nicely with the apparent size of the pilot dome. In fact, the pilot dome might be a tad wider.

 

As to the question about how if everything fits under the dome, why have the nub in the first place, that's the reason for designating it the subspace radio transceiver array. It makes technical sense, doesn't force the bridge into some weird position (admit it, sports fans, forcing the bridge to face to port for the sole purpose of conforming to an external nubbin is the dictionary definition of the tail wagging the dog!) and addresses a technical detail that had been previously unaddressed.

If we go with the current concept of bridge modules, and the one we saw was only one such example, well, it's quite possible we might have other arrangements on other ships, depending on mission profile, captain's preference, etc.

For instance...

 

^^ "That's how much room you need for the bridge to comfortably face forward, about 47 1/2 feet, with it centered under the dome"
Agreed, all indications so far are that the pilot dome will allow a forward facing bridge, at least with a minimum amount of acceptable tweaking, which satisfies "the way we saw it" requirement, at least as far as the zoom in shot of "The Cage" is concerned. The production version, on the other hand?

Your other designs are fun, but ignore that the smaller dome of the production version will not cover and 'hide' the lift(s), it's not tall enough nor large enough in diameter. These designs may work for other ships, but not for the Big 'E', we know what it looked like and since it didn't have multiple nubs, or any ather kind os superstructure back there, these wont work, I'm afraid.

As for why have the nub in the first place? Well, this goes back to AudioBridge's question above. If looked at only from the fictional standpoint, then no, there's no reason why Starfleet wouldn't just make the dome big enough to cover the lifts, unless they double as escape pods, in which case it makes some sense, I suppose? This is my prefered rationale anyway, "it adresses a technical detail that had been previously unaddressed" and has the advantage of allowing the nub to remain what MJ so clearly intended it be, the T/L housing!
As for why MJ designed it that way, we'll never know, I've already given my best guess above, but since it is as it is, and were not re-inventing the wheel, then repurposing it is out of the question, and I'll be as uncompromising on this as you are, CRA, on your forward facing bridge!

And as for "forcing the bridge to face to port for the sole purpose of conforming to an external nubbin is the dictionary definition of the tail wagging the dog!" No one is "forcing" anything, the design comes together very comfortably and there's no structural reason why it can't be this way. Niether is conforming to an "external nubbin", as you call it -implying as you are want to do, that this is just some random unspecified doohicky- the only reason for orienting the bridge to port. That the the "nub" is unquestionably intended to be the T/L housing is just the main reason, but also, with a single lift access, there is no need nor indeed room, for a concealed lateral shaft, and then also the fact that the lift is supposed to open directly on the bridge, not move sideways, etc. etc. So no, this is not the tail wagging the dog, but starting with a preconcieved notion, ignoring all the above and other considerations besides, even to the point of reinterpreting and repurposing established design, just so you can have a forward facing bridge, most certainly is!

 

Not to mention the fact that calling it a radio antenna also makes even more technical sense than calling it the turbolift tube because, as a radio antenna, it makes perfect sense for it to be connected directly to the communications station, which is directly forward of the object in question when the bridge is faced forward.

 

I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying the dome wasn't shortened, it was lowered. The bridge stayed at the same point within the dome, it's the dome that shifted positions.

 

I would not be surprised to see those variants in use on other starships. At all.

 

You're forgeting, or ignoring, that what we've been calling 'the nub' was undoubtedly intended by MJ to be the T/L housing and there's more than enough evidence from various sources to accept this as proven! Even CRA admits it was probably intended to be this way! So I don't see any reason to change this, and I don't think we have the right to, especially since there was and is no pre-existing inconsistancy with this element of the design. The T/L housing is in the right place, it's the T/L alcove on the bridge that's in the "wrong" position, relative to everything else!

 

I don't think this distinction solves the problem. There's no reason why the whole dome would be lowered, nor any evidence for it, especialy when you consider that this just displaces that much more, otherwise useful, area on deck 2. Also, the only purpose of the dome in the first place is to seal off the living inviroment from the hazards of open space! I can buy that maybe the sunken bridge alone forfieted the circular brifing room, as this neatly explains why we never saw that area again, but losing all that additianal real estate on deck 2 is too high of a price to pay when it isn't necessary, because the hull of deck 2 would preclude the need for the intrusion of the hull of the dome! besides, this would sink the bridge too far down and this falls under "taking it to extremes" which I consider to be unacceptable.

 

There was also a clear, and documented, intent for the Enterprise to be the first example of the seventeenth starship class, but that went by the wayside pretty early on, the second she was decided to be a Constitution class starship (if she was the first, she'd be an Enterprise class).

For the nub, we have a chain of logic and about forty years of assumptions. The nub is where it is so that the model remain symmetrical. If it was on one side, the whole reversed decal routine would've been a waste of paper and film.

Now, let's establish some facts.

The bridge was designed and built before the overall size of the ship was finalized, although there are certainly indications that the final size of 947' was set by the time filming began, certainly by the time the three-footer was finished.

There is no evidence that the turbolift was ever considered to be directly behind the captain's chair, and the turbolift alcove was not one of the wild sections.

We also know that those who actually worked on the show considered the bridge to face directly ahead. The placement of the turbolift wasn't considered an issue, and I suspect that if they were ever pressed on the issue, they'd just say that the thing slides over before going down and then ask why you're so worried over something this trivial.

Digging into the minutiae, the only shot we have giving any kind of relation between the bridge interior and the exterior is the clumsily executed zoom we saw in "The Cage", in which the intent is clear that the bridge faces forward (and since this intent made it on screen, it carries more weight).

In this case, we're dealing with the larger dome of the pilots.

Early indications are that the larger dome is large enough to accomodate a forward facing bridge.

That much we're all agreed on, right? Right.

So, the model is reworked for production, and part of the process includes sawing off the bottom half of the bridge dome, most likely for aesthetic purposes (the shorter dome does look more balanced).

Remember, it's still the same dome. We're just seeing the top half of what we saw before.

Now, within the show's universe, one of two things happened:

1) a shorter dome was fitted, forcing a nonsensical realignment of the bridge interior, rearrangement of the turbolift shafts, recalibration of the inertial dampeners to maintain the illusion of a forward facing bridge, while not only maintaining the bridge's position in the most vulnerable location on the ship, it's now even more vulnerable because now there's less hull around it, or...

2) the whole works was lowered down roughly one deck height, thus increasing protection for the bridge, requiring a minimum of physical changes to the ship, and only losing a briefing room and a few feet of turboshaft.

You tell me which makes more sense.

 

So, in universe, they modified the bridge dome for reasons unknown to us. Ok, let's proceed:

1. Why is the realignment nonsensical? In a relatively cramped ship that must maximize space for a 5 year mission with little exposure to starbases you need as much internal volume as you can get. If rotating the bridge a few degrees gives you more usable space in the saucer you do it.

2. If anyone at star fleet was worried about bridge vulnerability it wouldn't be on top of the ship. And regardless, without shields it doesn't really matter where you put it, you are SOL.

3. We're so put off by a bridge not facing facing exactly forward, but every star trek bridge has people working in spots that don't face forward. If facing forward was so damn important every workstation would be oriented forward. Do the people flying military drones park their truck so it is in the same direction the drone is flying? Maybe, but it wouldn't matter because they're flying it by viewscreen. If you're not going to rely on a window then it doesn't really have to face exactly forward.

I just don't understand why you wouldn't want to get the most out of your saucer space by rotating the bridge a little.