Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

[Cary L. Brown]

Passing on a question:

Poster currently in witness protection program asks:
How big would the pilot dome have to be to accomodate a forward facing bridge at its base? And what would that do to the overall size of the ship?

That, of course, requires some other things to be established:

1) Is the lift on the C/L or is the viewscreen on the C/L? (I say the lift, but some other folks disagree).

2) What scale is the ship? (947', 1080', or something else - mine turns out to be 1067')

3) What do you use to define the bridge layout? (Stage-plan sketch, McMaster prints, etc)

4) Must the bridge be "in" the dome entirely, or can it be a half-deck (or more) inset into the B/C-deck superstructure? (I say no, it must be in the dome.)

 

[Shaw]

Passing on a question:

Poster currently in witness protection program asks:
How big would the pilot dome have to be to accomodate a forward facing bridge at its base? And what would that do to the overall size of the ship?

Well, as a thought experiment starting with the assumption that the dome has to be big enough to fit all of the bridge (including the turbo lift) in it while still being centered, and using Jefferies' bridge set plans as a scale reference, the base of the dome would need a radius of about 24 feet to sorta work (with a little extra room for hull taper and thickness). Now assuming that the dome is 24 feet in radius, that would make the radius of the primary hull about 209 feet (or a diameter of 418 feet).

According to Jefferies, the primary hull is 417 feet in diameter.

So, could the larger dome of the pilot configurations of the 11 foot model been a direct consequence of Jefferies wanting the bridge facing forward? Sure.

Considering the timeline of events, the original plans were finished on November 7, 1964, the 33 inch model was largely complete by November 15, 1964, shooting on the bridge set started on November 30, 1964 and the 11 foot model wasn't started until December 8, 1964.

So the 33 inch model and original plans predate the bridge set, but the 11 foot model was built afterwards. It is possible that the overly large dome on that model was a direct result of the bridge not lining up with the turbo lift.

This is about what it would look like (using Casimiro's top view, red circle approximately the size of the original bridge)...

The larger the dome, the better the fit though... and the larger the scale of the ship. At about 26 or 27 feet for the radius you end up with a primary hull at about 453 to 471 feet in diameter.

By comparison, the only way the bridge can work on the 33 inch model is by rotating it, and after the chopping of the 11 foot model's bridge after WNMHGB, you really need to push it down to the next deck to keep it going straight (or end up with a scale closer to the new movie's Enterprise ).

Personally, I still like the turbo lift lining up with the turbo lift.


Overall, these are all very rough approximations... I'd rather wait for anything more precise until after I've finished my measurement survey of the 11 foot model.

 

[ST-One]

Passing on a question:

Poster currently in witness protection program asks:
How big would the pilot dome have to be to accomodate a forward facing bridge at its base? And what would that do to the overall size of the ship?

Say hello to CRA

 

[PvtKtara]

Passing on a question:

Poster currently in witness protection program asks:
How big would the pilot dome have to be to accomodate a forward facing bridge at its base? And what would that do to the overall size of the ship?

Well, as a thought experiment starting with the assumption that the dome has to be big enough to fit all of the bridge (including the turbo lift) in it while still being centered, and using Jefferies' bridge set plans as a scale reference, the base of the dome would need a radius of about 24 feet to sorta work (with a little extra room for hull taper and thickness). Now assuming that the dome is 24 feet in radius, that would make the radius of the primary hull about 209 feet (or a diameter of 418 feet).

According to Jefferies, the primary hull is 417 feet in diameter.

So, could the larger dome of the pilot configurations of the 11 foot model been a direct consequence of Jefferies wanting the bridge facing forward? Sure.

Considering the timeline of events, the original plans were finished on November 7, 1964, the 33 inch model was largely complete by November 15, 1964, shooting on the bridge set started on November 30, 1964 and the 11 foot model wasn't started until December 8, 1964.

So the 33 inch model and original plans predate the bridge set, but the 11 foot model was built afterwards. It is possible that the overly large dome on that model was a direct result of the bridge not lining up with the turbo lift.

This is about what it would look like (using Casimiro's top view, red circle approximately the size of the original bridge)...

The larger the dome, the better the fit though... and the larger the scale of the ship. At about 26 or 27 feet for the radius you end up with a primary hull at about 453 to 471 feet in diameter.

By comparison, the only way the bridge can work on the 33 inch model is by rotating it, and after the chopping of the 11 foot model's bridge after WNMHGB, you really need to push it down to the next deck to keep it going straight (or end up with a scale closer to the new movie's Enterprise ).

Personally, I still like the turbo lift lining up with the turbo lift.


Overall, these are all very rough approximations... I'd rather wait for anything more precise until after I've finished my measurement survey of the 11 foot model.

So, the rough estimate is that CRA's idea regarding the bridge placement is workable, correct?

 

[Shaw]

So, the rough estimate is that CRA's idea regarding the bridge placement is workable, correct?

For the sake of argument, lets look at the dates of events (and in some cases scheduled events) to see where things might have changed assuming that Jefferies wanted a forward facing bridge.

First, lets list dates of major events...

• November 7, 1964: Construction plans for the model are completed, and as the one feature linking the scale of the model to the live action sets is the bridge, the overall size seems to have already been determined by this point.
• November 15, 1964: The 33 inch model is brought to Roddenberry for comments and approval, and suggestions are made (this most likely included the addition of windows to the model).
• November 27, 1964: Live action shooting is scheduled for the Transporter Room, Enterprise Passageway and Pike's Quarters.
• November 30, 1964: Live action shooting is scheduled for the Bridge (which means construction of it might have been started by around the 15th).
• December 1, 1964: Live action shooting is scheduled for the Bridge and Orion Courtyard.
• December 8, 1964: Construction begins on 11 foot model of the Enterprise. Live action shooting is scheduled for the Rigel Fortress.
• December 14, 1964: The 33 inch model is delivered to Roddenberry with the specified changes. This takes place during the filming of exterior shots at the Rigel Fortress (which may mean there were either delays in the schedule or a need for pickup shots).
• December 24, 1964: Shooting of The Cage wraps (almost two weeks after the scheduled end of shooting), only one effects shot still outstanding.
• December 29, 1964: The 11 foot model was delivered to the Howard A. Anderson studio.

Now, Jefferies' bridge plans without the turbo lift alcove and turbo lift fit very nicely into the bridge on the 33 inch model. Add those elements back in (inline with the center of the ship) and the alcove as constructed seems to push the turbo lift too far back.

Because the set is modular, it could have been design straight forward and had two sections switched towards completion. If it was done towards completion of the construction of the set, that would put the change at around November 29th (the day before shooting was scheduled to begin, with the crane shot scheduled for the 30th).

The diameter of the 11 foot models bridge is significantly larger than that 33 inch models, with the 11 foot model's turbo lift matching the set's position better (but this time being slightly too far back rather than slightly too close as on the 33 inch model). While the base of the new bridge structure is more than wide enough to rotate the filmed bridge configuration, the walls of the structure as built on the model narrow too quickly for it to fit nicely (the top, back half of the turbo lift would protrude). Still, the change in size may have been a last minute reaction to the altered set, and Jefferies (pressed for time) may have thought that just changing the diameter of the base would solve the problem. After that I'm sure he just learned to live with it.

For CRA's plans, the easiest solution (assuming he wants to stay with a 417 foot wide primary hull) would be to have the walls of the bridge structure taper less until just above the half height point. That would be enough to keep the turbo lift from protruding out into space.



Again, a lot of this is based on early rough measurements, and I would rather wait for a more detailed analysis until after I've made (and shared) better measurements of the 11 foot model.

 

[Vance]

It really is easier, I think, to just say "Hollywood flipped the stations with the lift for dramatic purposes" ... since that actually is exactly what they did.

 

[Birdog]

It really is easier, I think, to just say "Hollywood flipped the stations with the lift for dramatic purposes" ... since that actually is exactly what they did.

I agree with that. Now the question becomes: When drawing plans do we fix it per MJ's intent, or do we use FJ's workable but cumbersome solution?

 

[Vance]

It really is easier, I think, to just say "Hollywood flipped the stations with the lift for dramatic purposes" ... since that actually is exactly what they did.

I agree with that. Now the question becomes: When drawing plans do we fix it per MJ's intent, or do we use FJ's workable but cumbersome solution?

That's the question, isn't it? If you want to follow MJ's intent, you put the bridge straight on, with the lift right behind the captain's chair. If you want to follow what's on screen, you need to rotate the bridge per FJ. The other option, which is what was eventually done in TMP and forward, is simply 'double up' the lifts on the external of the model (the mouse ears), allow a straight bridge with the off-center lifts.

Any of three options has to make some allowances, since the bridge/lift issue is clearly a disconnect between the two on-screen elements. (One of a few, really, but easily the most obvious).

 

[Birdog]

It really is easier, I think, to just say "Hollywood flipped the stations with the lift for dramatic purposes" ... since that actually is exactly what they did.

I agree with that. Now the question becomes: When drawing plans do we fix it per MJ's intent, or do we use FJ's workable but cumbersome solution?

That's the question, isn't it? If you want to follow MJ's intent, you put the bridge straight on, with the lift right behind the captain's chair. If you want to follow what's on screen, you need to rotate the bridge per FJ. The other option, which is what was eventually done in TMP and forward, is simply 'double up' the lifts on the external of the model (the mouse ears), allow a straight bridge with the off-center lifts.

Any of three options has to make some allowances, since the bridge/lift issue is clearly a disconnect between the two on-screen elements. (One of a few, really, but easily the most obvious).

I prefer MJ's intent but I also like the TMP solution as well but you do lose some bridge real estate with the second lift. I think it makes more sense from an operational standpoint to have communications at the port quarter than to have it dead aft.

 

[Vance]

I prefer MJ's intent but I also like the TMP solution as well but you do lose some bridge real estate with the second lift. I think it makes more sense from an operational standpoint to have communications at the port quarter than to have it dead aft.

You could keep Uhura where she is. It's one of Scotty's terminals (often considered 'spare' anyway) that'll switch over by neccessity. I really don't think it would alter the 'familiar' functions of the bridge that much, when you think about it.

 

[Birdog]

I prefer MJ's intent but I also like the TMP solution as well but you do lose some bridge real estate with the second lift. I think it makes more sense from an operational standpoint to have communications at the port quarter than to have it dead aft.

You could keep Uhura where she is. It's one of Scotty's terminals (often considered 'spare' anyway) that'll switch over by neccessity. I really don't think it would alter the 'familiar' functions of the bridge that much, when you think about it.

I didn't explain it well. I had two thoughts collide. On the TOS bridge, comms is aft and the lift is port quarter so if you move the lift aft then you have to move comms to port. I am using the FJ tech manual as my guide at the current moment.

 

[Vance]

I didn't explain it well. I had two thoughts collide. On the TOS bridge, comms is aft and the lift is port quarter so if you move the lift aft then you have to move comms to port. I am using the FJ tech manual as my guide at the current moment.

Well, there's a small amount of sliding involved, but less than you're fretting I think. Uhura and Spock shift one station counter-clockwise from top. Scotty is now just port behind Kirk when he shows up topside. We have a station or two that's relatively unused in the series that now get used on the starboard side, but that's pretty much it.

 

[B.J.]

Personally, I'd rather just move the nub on the outside, making the exterior asymmetric, and leave the bridge alone to face forward. But that's only if I were in charge...

 

[Tallguy]

Personally, I'd rather just move the nub on the outside, making the exterior asymmetric, and leave the bridge alone to face forward. But that's only if I were in charge...

I think my credentials as a TOS purist are sound, and I'd MUCH rather seen the exterior changed rather than the interior. I've made a bridge with a centered turbolift. It looks very flat. There's a real good reason why they moved it and kept it moved for every iteration of the Enterprise.

But that's a little off the mark for Shaw's project, isn't it?

 

[BK613]

I'm never understood the hubbub about the offline bridge. I mean the interiors of ships are often asymmetrical across the centerline.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It really is easier, I think, to just say "Hollywood flipped the stations with the lift for dramatic purposes" ... since that actually is exactly what they did.

I agree with that. Now the question becomes: When drawing plans do we fix it per MJ's intent, or do we use FJ's workable but cumbersome solution?

This is what I don't get... at all. There is nothing whatsoever "cumbersome" about having the bridge face in a direction other than straight-ahead. (Well, not unless you make the ludicrous assumption that the main viewer is a window... sigh.)

There is absolutely no reason that the bridge couldn't face towards the aft of the ship, or direction to one side. There's nothing whatsoever regarding the operation of this ship that requires you to be facing in the direction of travel. The only two reasons for it to face straight ahead would be:

1. A need for direct, visual "line of sight" straight ahead. Not an issue when you have a viewscreen rather than a big @#$* plate of glass.
2. A need to be able to relate physical sense of inertia to direction of travel. Not an issue for a ship that has an "inertia compensation field."

My personal take on this is that the bridge is made up of a series of consoles which can be arranged in whatever configuration you like. You could, in theory, put the main viewscreen complex (including the two status-monitor panels flanking it) immediately next to the lift entrance... and I suspect that a few captains might prefer things like that!

I'd guess that under April, the Enterprise had the "original intent" arrangement, but that at some point, one of the commanding officers got sick of having people walk into his bridge DIRECTLY BEHIND HIM... giving him that creepy "someone sneaking up on me" feeling. So, they unbolted the consoles in a dockyard at some point and shuffled them around to let the captain look over his shoulder at the entrance.

Not a TRIVIAL change... you'd have to shut down operations on the bridge for a day or two, minimum, in order to do it... but not all that complicated, is it? Especially if you think of each station as simply a computer terminal which is tied into the main computer (which I treat as starting directly below the bridge on deck 2).

Again... the main viewscreen isn't a window, it's a computer monitor. It can sit wherever it's most convenient, and there is zero logical justification for saying "that has to be on the centerline of the ship."

 

[B.J.]

I know there's no logical reason for it needing to face forward, but personally, it would just bug me knowing that I'm not boldly going "forward".

 

[Shaw]

I know I haven't addressed this that much, mainly because it seemed like more of an issue that would have come up when I do the redrawing of the Jefferies set plans for the bridge. Not surprisingly, my take isn't all that different from Cary's on this... including the customizable bridge arrangement (which I think could have been used with nice effect in TOS).

I would say that the only major difference between Cary's take on this and mine is the lower deck and command module. Cary's solution (using solid steps) is one that I might have taken had I given myself a little more freedom in this area, but I realized that it might be helpful to have the command module movable (and the stairs fold out of the way for that). While we never see the module itself move, there are times when something other than the viewscreen appears directly in front of those stations (or the viewscreen is off center from them if in that general direction).

Small difference, but that is why I'll be sticking with the non-solid steps (even if the solid ones really make more sense).

 

[CuttingEdge100]

IMHO, I'd just turn the bridge straight, and put two turbolifts in to even it out. But Shaw isn't into to that sort of thing...

With that said, it would be best to have the bridge on an angle to make it fit

 

[Maurice]

Seriosuly, all this fuss because the three people con the command module face a few degrees of center. The rest of the bridge crew faces all kinds of directions. It matters not one iota.