TOS Enterprise Bridge Scale
- Thread starter Taranis
- Start date
There are two answers to this. Neither is entirely "authoritative."
There is the size of the physical set, which is not entirely known but is fairly closely established by looking at the (rather crude) set drawings.
Then there is the size of the drawing laid out by Mike McMaster on his "bridge blueprints." This is slightly larger than the physical set, but (in my renderings) seems to "look more correct" (possibly due to the lens used in series filming?) than bridges based on the actual set size.
You have to choose between the two. I chose to use the McMaster prints, personally (no surprise there, due to my earlier comment, right?). Those gave me the following bridge arrangement on my 1701 model. (To avoid "image hijacking" your thread, I've removed the "image" tags from these, so they're direct links. Feel free to re-add the image tags if you wish to.)
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/2551/image42j.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6329/1080section0419094.jpg
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9334/1080section0419092.jpg
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9797/image5dou.jpg
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7357/image31z.jpg
If you want to find the McMaster prints, check out the site linked to in this TrekBBS thread:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=68954
I own a real, paper physical copy of that set (and, actually, of 2/3 of everything else on that site). But since there is no way to buy those anymore, this is your best bet to get that info.
There is the size of the physical set, which is not entirely known but is fairly closely established by looking at the (rather crude) set drawings.
Then there is the size of the drawing laid out by Mike McMaster on his "bridge blueprints." This is slightly larger than the physical set, but (in my renderings) seems to "look more correct" (possibly due to the lens used in series filming?) than bridges based on the actual set size.
You have to choose between the two. I chose to use the McMaster prints, personally (no surprise there, due to my earlier comment, right?). Those gave me the following bridge arrangement on my 1701 model. (To avoid "image hijacking" your thread, I've removed the "image" tags from these, so they're direct links. Feel free to re-add the image tags if you wish to.)
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/2551/image42j.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6329/1080section0419094.jpg
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9334/1080section0419092.jpg
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9797/image5dou.jpg
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7357/image31z.jpg
If you want to find the McMaster prints, check out the site linked to in this TrekBBS thread:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=68954
I own a real, paper physical copy of that set (and, actually, of 2/3 of everything else on that site). But since there is no way to buy those anymore, this is your best bet to get that info.
The set was about thirty feet in diameter.
I've heard about the "Mcmaster is bigger" notion but I've not been able to find out why. Admittedly the set plan sketch is a little off in a few respects but assuming that the circles which made up the bridge are correct, and assuming that the corridors are about 8’ wide we get the following result:
(for accuracy, all measurements taken from centre of bridge to centre of turbolift)
Setplan: 20’6” –- 21’2”
(the variance is present due to where you measure the corridor width. I admit it's also based on the two assumptions I made earlier, which is not ideal)
On average, the distance is 20’10”
Looking at Mcmaster, the centre-centre distance is anything but consistent! I got different results depending on whether I looked at the top view, side view, metric or imperial!
Side view, imperial: 20’8”
Side view, metric: 634cm (20’10”)
Top view, imperial: 21’11”
Top view, metric: 632cm (20’9”)
(I’ve rounded off the fractions for ease of comparison)
The interesting thing is how similar the figures are to the setplan sketch.
Clearly other people have got different results – I just can’t see how! (and I do want to be as accurate as possible)
(for accuracy, all measurements taken from centre of bridge to centre of turbolift)
Setplan: 20’6” –- 21’2”
(the variance is present due to where you measure the corridor width. I admit it's also based on the two assumptions I made earlier, which is not ideal)
On average, the distance is 20’10”
Looking at Mcmaster, the centre-centre distance is anything but consistent! I got different results depending on whether I looked at the top view, side view, metric or imperial!
Side view, imperial: 20’8”
Side view, metric: 634cm (20’10”)
Top view, imperial: 21’11”
Top view, metric: 632cm (20’9”)
(I’ve rounded off the fractions for ease of comparison)
The interesting thing is how similar the figures are to the setplan sketch.
Clearly other people have got different results – I just can’t see how! (and I do want to be as accurate as possible)
It might be worthwhile to try to get David Shaw to comment on this. He's the guy who provided me with the set plans, and I know he's done significant work regarding them.
In my own case, what I did was take the McMaster prints, and a fine-graduated metal ruler for measuring distances and a protractor for finding angles, and took actual physical measurements from the drawings. I used the top-down view as my primary reference, the "station section" view for my secondary reference, and of course the drawings for the helm and captain's chair. I also used the "main viewer" drawing, of course.
Eventually, I suspect, I'll end up using the individual console plans as templates to draw textures to be placed on those consoles... along with a number of other textures I'll also have to create (not ENTIRELY from scratch, but dramatically modified from the source info!).
I did NOT use the lateral section views at all, so I didn't detect the slight mismatch you mention. As far as I'm concerned, I can attribute that to the fact that these were all done by hand, on velum, long before CAD even existed. Given that, it's not surprising that there were minor differences... that's the problem with trying to represent 3D with 2D, after all.
True enough. Actually, the differences aren't too much of a problem (give or take an inch is hardly going to break the bank, after all!), it's the "14% bigger" quote from Shaw that I'm having trouble reconciling, espcially if it applied to the side views (it would made for some short doors!)
Ah well, the search for precision continues...
Thank you gents .. this was the information I was looking for.. 
the scale of the Big E has always been an interest and the arrangements of the internal floor plans......
I have never like the bridge been 36 degrees rotated to the port, (I think)... but has that become canon now or is it a hotly contested issue ???
I want to try and work it out myself in a 3d medium and I am interested in the ideas and knowledge you all have to share.
I really plan to build 2 models
1. canon Enterprise to gain experience.
2. Non Canon my own. using what I would ideally like to see
it.
Followed by a Shuttle Craft and a TOS styled workbee.
.. .
later Klingon vessels to the TOS style
the scale of the Big E has always been an interest and the arrangements of the internal floor plans......
I have never like the bridge been 36 degrees rotated to the port, (I think)... but has that become canon now or is it a hotly contested issue
???I want to try and work it out myself in a 3d medium and I am interested in the ideas and knowledge you all have to share.
I really plan to build 2 models
1. canon Enterprise to gain experience.
2. Non Canon my own. using what I would ideally like to see
it.
Followed by a Shuttle Craft and a TOS styled workbee.
.. .
later Klingon vessels to the TOS style
True enough. Actually, the differences aren't too much of a problem (give or take an inch is hardly going to break the bank, after all!), it's the "14% bigger" quote from Shaw that I'm having trouble reconciling, espcially if it applied to the side views (it would made for some short doors!)
Ah well, the search for precision continues...
.. The Enterprise. I will have to seek out Shaw
I am interested in why he .. feels it should be 14% bigger
Last edited:
Canon points to a forward facing bridge, regardless of the geometry issues.
And Shaw is definitely a "he".
And Shaw is definitely a "he".
Well, anyone who can't figure out that David Shaw is a he is surely not up for a discussion of matters which require far more attention to detail. When you are serious enough to pay attention to your own thread, I'll reconsider expending time detailing how I reached my conclusions.
Of course I've discussed all this before, so there is nothing stopping anyone from just going back and reading what I've written previously.
Well, that makes the assumption that I was talking about scale in every direction... which I wasn't, nor did I care about. I figured once the McMasters plans deviated from Jefferies, they were no longer needed for the work I was doing. There is enough Jefferies info around today to do a Jefferies bridge.
I don't like using other third party interpretations when I can go to the source (even when I end up reaching the same conclusions as others... like those reached by MGagen). I suggest sticking with Jefferies (and by passing me too)... and don't work from assumptions (like your corridor guess) when there are real numbers to be found and used.
David Shaw. well I missed that in my haste today and apologise there was no offence meant. like most people
these day I don't have as mush time as I would like to
pursue my interests to even proof read the answers to my
own questions
but none the less a error on my part.
but there is no need to take the line you have
about my been serious about it. reconsider or don't,
Its up to you.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have seen your work on the blueprints for the Enterprise
as they where suggested to me by a friend who has already
used them in his own build.
the reason I was interested in the scale issue is that I have
thought that the size of the Enterprise should be larger than the canon view of 947 ft.
No it doesn't...
Only your personal preference does.The fact that you've had to jump through so many hoops to try to make that fit... including dropping it down a full deck height to what is normally considered "deck 2"... and where it no longer fits with the on-screen evidence that the bridge is in that dome... should be telling.
It's fine for you to prefer it facing forward (though there is NO rationale for insisting that the "main viewer" - which is nothing but a computer monitor - need face in the same direction as the travel of the vessel. It could face AFT and still do exactly the same job, after all!). Just don't make false statements about that somehow being "canon."
That would be just the ticket for what I'm planning! Reading between the lines though, I take it you're not referring to a set of plans complete with measurements?!
Perhaps a good starting point would be using this particular illustration, although I always assumed that was just a sketch. Is there any indication that it was used as a plan for the actual building of the set?
Unfortunately, actual numbers are the one thing missing from all the original plans and diagrams I've managed to find so far. Would you be able to point me in the right direction please?
No it doesn't...
The fact that you've had to jump through so many hoops to try to make that fit... including dropping it down a full deck height to what is normally considered "deck 2"... and where it no longer fits with the on-screen evidence that the bridge is in that dome... should be telling.
It's fine for you to prefer it facing forward (though there is NO rationale for insisting that the "main viewer" - which is nothing but a computer monitor - need face in the same direction as the travel of the vessel. It could face AFT and still do exactly the same job, after all!). Just don't make false statements about that somehow being "canon."
Agreed. also, if you're into the "only what is seen onscreen is canon stuff"
and consider ST:TMP to be conon (and most people do) then the TOS bridge plan view is clearly shown onscreen, with the 36 degree offset, per the V'ger probe scanning of the ships library computer. Nuff said. 
No it doesn't...
Zoom in shot from "The Cage". Upheld by the CGI remastering.
Ruling by those in charge of this stuff says that the bridge faces forward. The only question left is to figure out how.
Try this:
http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/images/TOS/Jefferies_bridge_sketch.jpg
You might have to cut and paste the url to make it work.
http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/images/TOS/Jefferies_bridge_sketch.jpg
You might have to cut and paste the url to make it work.
Yep, and then there's that looong corridor in front of TMP engine room! Its onscreen so it has to be that way ,no compromises or deviations allowed to the Holy Conon, after all, we true believers know that the creators of star Trek were inspired by the Great Bird Of The Galaxy, and were therefore divinely protected from making any mistakes, so any seeming descrepancy within the "as seen onscreen" Holy Canon must be due to some failure on our part because ultimatly it's all real, and it simply must all fit together somehow!
Similar threads
