TOS Enterprise Bridge Scale
- Thread starter Taranis
- Start date
There are plans with measurements and call outs...
I would never have used that drawing for anything... and definitely not as a starting point.
I've shared a ton of information on this subject (including scaled versions of most of the sets), but I'm reticent to share documents with a lot of people which aren't actually mine to share. That is why I took the time to distill as much of what I've found as possible without going beyond the fair use aspects of copy right law.
There is a massive thread covering this type of stuff... it shouldn't be that hard to find (it isn't like I've started all that many threads in the last few years). And everything I've put together is really meant for others to use rather than to stand on it's own. That was the point of using a Creative Commons Share-Alike copyright on all my work.
You just have to find it.
Same shot establishes that the bridge is at the very top of the dome, and that it's not on a plane parallel to the rest of the ship.No it doesn't...Only your personal preference does.
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.
"Ruling" says that the FX shot has lots of problems, and has never truly worked convincingly.
We know that you believe this is the "correct" answer. But you "correct answer" relies on your "I'm driving a car, I must be facing forwards" mindset (which has ZERO to do with the functionality of any vessel, naval or stellar) and requires the abandonment of clear indications of what the original designer (who is the ONLY "authority" I give a flying damn about on this topic) intended.
You've spent how many years clinging to this, requiring the bridge to be set down inside the B/C-deck superstructure instead of inside the... ahem... BRIDGE DOME (clearly called out as such by Matt Jefferies). It's silly. It's even sillier when you keep bringing the damned thing up every fifteen seconds.
Nah, it's just that Spock was really a party-animal off-duty (see, you knew Abrams got that from SOMEPLACE, didn't ya?) and spent half his time in the brig as a result.
There is a massive thread covering this type of stuff... it shouldn't be that hard to find (it isn't like I've started all that many threads in the last few years). And everything I've put together is really meant for others to use rather than to stand on it's own. That was the point of using a Creative Commons Share-Alike copyright on all my work.
You just have to find it.
I will go and have a look..... Thanks for sharing it.
I generally like to work out the scales myself for a model in cgi .. so the more info I have the better.
--------------------
Thank you all again for the responses, you all very informed and
have give this material more thought than I have in the last few year....
up until recently I was involved in a BSG fan film that has died a death and now I have moved back to Trek.. I was involved in a small way in the Star Trek Starship-Farragut Animation Episode Power Source episode.. and I hope to be again in the future.
http://trekmovie.com/2009/07/23/fanm...agut-released/
at the moment I am preparing for a move to Spain next week and don't have the time for any further work on them.
Gerard
Show me one quote from Matt Jefferies that indicates that he intended for the bridge to face thirty-some degrees to port.
BTW, a query to Mike Okuda on this has been sent. Answer will be posted when I get it.
BTW, a query to Mike Okuda on this has been sent. Answer will be posted when I get it.
Last edited:
Matt Jefferies drew an illustration making it clear that the dome is where the bridge is. He drew the lift shaft at the back.
We've already established that the original intent for the bridge was much like the bridge of the Reliant, with a single lift at the centerline aft, in-line with the main viewer. We've also already established why the bridge's "wild" segments were rearranged long before filming began, so that the lift station went where a console had been, and a console went where the lift station had been. We know why (for shot-composition purposes, so that we could have "at an angle" over-the-shoulder shots of the captain which would also show people entering or exiting the bridge.
The "nub" was intended to be the lift shaft. MJ's diagram illustrates this unquestionably (as it also illustrates the correct location of the bridge as being INSIDE THE BRIDGE DOME). They didn't move the nub. They did move the COMPUTER MONITOR which was called the "main viewscreen."
You consistently, and incessantly, keep declaring that "it is holy writ" that the bridge must face forward... no disagreement will be brooked... because you, personally, think it's the case, on the basis of rejecting many other elements (from the designer, Matt Jefferies, himself) in favor of a single SFX shot with significant technical issues (including, as I pointed out again above, that the "horizontal plane" of the bridge in that shot is not consistent with or parallel to the horizontal plane of the ship throughout the entire sequence!)
The SOLE point of that SFX shot was to give the viewer a sense of scale for the ship, and to establish a relationship between the main set (the bridge) and the exterior of the ship. That "point" was that the bridge is in that dome on top of the ship.
That you seem to reject that PRINCIPLE POINT OF THE ENTIRE SEQUENCE in order to justify a single "alignment issue" conclusion you've drawn is... well... silly.
I thought the bridge was 38 feet in diameter about
interesting .. once I start it in cgi .. I will have a better understanding of scales involved for the external..
Message received.
The offset turbolift is a design anomaly brought about by dramatic needs, NOT an expression of design intent.
The offset turbolift is a design anomaly brought about by dramatic needs, NOT an expression of design intent.
just as a side interest to this.. if the cylinder behind the Bridge dome was not a elevator tube
"what would you like it to be or could be" ??
I have decided to build it both ways - if possible how I don't know and have not fully work that out and I cannot until I start the model of the external hull.. that will be in
a few week until I have finished moving..
I have post some of my Trek work " rendering and the building of models in cgi..
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=3570606#post3570606
I have more images but they are none Trek related ..
you have all given me a lot to think about
"what would you like it to be or could be" ??
I have decided to build it both ways - if possible how I don't know and have not fully work that out and I cannot until I start the model of the external hull.. that will be in
a few week until I have finished moving..
I have post some of my Trek work " rendering and the building of models in cgi..
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=3570606#post3570606
I have more images but they are none Trek related ..
you have all given me a lot to think about
CRA wants it to be a subspace transceiver antenna, since a forward facing bridge would place the communications station adjacent to the nub. If I were to accept the forward facing bridge (which, honestly, I don't really) then I would make it a turboshaft after all next to the bridge one that is used to hard dock to a matching female turboshaft at a base, that way the ship could be boarded by turbolift in addition to just transporter or shuttlecraft. Of course, there could also be a secret concealed gangway door on the port saucer edge like the TMP ship to handle walk-ins too. Maybe. But there was no such feature on the model.
--Alex
--Alex
The problem with that is that you'll then be driven into the same approach CRA has been driven into in his plans... moving the bridge downwards 'til it doesn't occupy the "bridge dome" at all anymore.just as a side interest to this.. if the cylinder behind the Bridge dome was not a elevator tube
"what would you like it to be or could be" ??
I have decided to build it both ways - if possible how I don't know and have not fully work that out and I cannot until I start the model of the external hull.. that will be in
a few week until I have finished moving..
I have post some of my Trek work " rendering and the building of models in cgi..
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=3570606#post3570606
I have more images but they are none Trek related ..
you have all given me a lot to think about
CRA's prints have the bridge a full deck beneath the dome (which is not what was seen in "The Cage"), which is the only way that you can have the bridge turned so that the screen is facing forward. Not unless you presume that the turbolift is actually a wafer-thin TARDIS.
However, if you simply keep the "nub" as the elevator... everything works out perfectly.
And all you have to accept is the idea that a COMPUTER MONITOR need not be perfectly aligned with the ship's direction of travel.
Which is exactly what I described, above. That was his original intent. (Odd that you reject his "power generated in the engines" thing which was also based upon his aerospace-engineering perspective, though.)
And we know why they moved it. As you said (and as I said as well), for that "over-the-shoulder shot.
Irrelevant. It's what's on-screen. And the bridge simply doesn't fit in the dome with the elevator anywhere else but in that cylinder. Meaning that you have to set it a full deck down (as you've done) in order to have any chance of making it work.
So, which do you think MJ would have chosen, if forced to select one of the following:
1) The bridge is not in the location he shows it in his own sketches... not inside the BRIDGE DOME, in other words.
2) The elevator is a TARDIS.
3) The stations inside the bridge can be reconfigured relatively easily and the "main viewscreen," or any other station, can be located at any location within this dome?
Those are the three possible choices. Which do you think he would have chosen to go with? And "the lift, the conn, and the viewscreen are all in-line with the x-axis of the vessel" isn't one of those options, despite that being his original intention, because that's not what was seen on-screen.
Personally (in-universe), I think that the Constitution-class was originally built per Jefferies' intent. But I know I, personally, hate having people walk into the room immediately behind me, where I can't seem them. (I've had enough real-world experience that I'm the guy who always picks his seat in the restaurant so he can see the entrance and has his back to the wall!). And since these various workstations are basically just bolted into place... it would take only about a day to totally rearrange the bridge. The only location in the bridge that couldn't be changed would be the location of the lift, because it would be linked into the tube system which would, in turn, be integral to the structure of the vessel. To move the lift, you'd have to rip the hull apart. To move the viewer and the Conn, you'd need to disconnect some wiring, pull a few bolts, have a work crew switch the position of a few elements, rebolt them into place, and reconnect the wiring. One would be a major dockyard operation involving massive reconstructio of the hull, and the other would be one shift's worth of downtime, max.
Last edited:
The dome in "The Cage" is not the same dome you're showing. The one on the model at the time was twice as tall and significantly wider.
"Significantly" is a relative term... and in any case, my dome is slightly modified from that seen in the model, as I made its base the same exact diameter as that seen in the original "Cage" version at the root (it's not a major difference, but it's one of the places I allowed myself to deviate from "canon").
For anyone not aware, the original model had "dome" which is about 150% of the final production one in height. They took that part and shaved material from the base (and I believe also reshaped the outside somewhat). The end result is a shorter dome with a SLIGHTLY smaller OD at the base (about 95%, maybe a bit larger).
I decided to keep the lift "nub" where it belongs but increased the base diameter of my dome to match the "Cage" version (meaning that the outer walls have a greater overall slope by about 8.5 degrees). This is based upon the concept that the bridge is, in theory, a replaceable module and the "socket" should stay the same size. I decided to treat the reduction in diameter as a "production hack" (which it, quite literally, IS) and use the "Cage" diameter as my stake-in-the-ground.
However... the size of my bridge interior is, as discussed, the McMaster print set size, and the lift tube is in the correct position.
So, the only different we'd see if I had the exact "production" dome shape would be that the little "sensor access corridor" around the bridge would be a bit more cramped.
And the only different between the "Cage" and "TOS" bridge domes would be the height of the zone above the consoles, which would be about five feet taller.
I am not for or against any ideas posted here either the accepted canon or members personal preferences. I am looking for ideas and the considered thoughts of you all.
that the orignal intent was to have the turbo lift travel down the shaft behind the bridge. but I would say that due to the needs of shooting the show compromise's had to be made every day.. and orignal intent was or had to be thrown out the window.
never expecting that fans would be so interested in what made things work and what did not..
for me its a pet peeve.. I don't like the idea .. yet I accept that the way it is or its seen to be... perhaps the problem is for many is like a pilot trying to fly a 747 when seating 36 degrees to the port "lol" or driving a car and we are projecting these thought into the bridge design.. thus causing this dilemma.
like a modern Submarine the helmsman and the Planesman sit facing forward in an enclosed shell where as older subs were on the side.. and I think a submarine is the
closest reference we would have to a star ship in space.
just a thought
totally agree with you there.. I never sit with my back to a door. and I would agree
that the orignal intent was to have the turbo lift travel down the shaft behind the bridge. but I would say that due to the needs of shooting the show compromise's had to be made every day.. and orignal intent was or had to be thrown out the window.
never expecting that fans would be so interested in what made things work and what did not..
for me its a pet peeve.. I don't like the idea .. yet I accept that the way it is or its seen to be... perhaps the problem is for many is like a pilot trying to fly a 747 when seating 36 degrees to the port
"lol" or driving a car and we are projecting these thought into the bridge design.. thus causing this dilemma. like a modern Submarine the helmsman and the Planesman sit facing forward in an enclosed shell where as older subs were on the side.. and I think a submarine is the
closest reference we would have to a star ship in space.
just a thought
Shaw's preliminary findings in his structural survey of the model indicate that the pilot dome is big enough to accommodate a forward facing bridge, even at the traditional 947' length.
And the subsequent picture above is still of the production dome, and therefore doesn't prove a damn thing.
And the subsequent picture above is still of the production dome, and therefore doesn't prove a damn thing.
Similar threads
