Clean Slate: Design the Bridge
- Thread starter FalTorPan
- Start date
A few points regarding the original bridge.
I have yet to see anything showing that the turbolift doors were ever intended to be at the back of the bridge set. Every diagram I've ever seen has the doors in their customary place. For that matter, that section was also likely not "wild", like the other sections, so swapping the turbolift with Communications was probably impossible anyway.
As far as original intent goes, I always cite the producers' intent, which trumps even Jefferies. And as far as the producers and the writers were concerned, the bridge faced forward, the turbolift was where it was for dramatic effect, and if they gave it any thought at all with regard to how anything lined up with the model's exterior, they probably just figured folks would assume that the turbolift shunted off to the side before going down. The nubbin on the back of the dome was there for the sake of side-to-side symmetry, in the event they had to use the reversed decals and make it look like they were showing the other side of the ship.
I freely admit that deciding that the nubbin is not the turbolift housing and is, in fact, the subspace radio transceiver array, is shameless exploitation of a loophole (no diagram made contemporaneously with the show has ever identified just what that thing is, only that the bridge is under the dome), but that approach also solves more than a few problems, not the least of which is having to deal with the whole mess of trying to line up the turboshaft with that damn thing.
I have yet to see anything showing that the turbolift doors were ever intended to be at the back of the bridge set. Every diagram I've ever seen has the doors in their customary place. For that matter, that section was also likely not "wild", like the other sections, so swapping the turbolift with Communications was probably impossible anyway.
As far as original intent goes, I always cite the producers' intent, which trumps even Jefferies. And as far as the producers and the writers were concerned, the bridge faced forward, the turbolift was where it was for dramatic effect, and if they gave it any thought at all with regard to how anything lined up with the model's exterior, they probably just figured folks would assume that the turbolift shunted off to the side before going down. The nubbin on the back of the dome was there for the sake of side-to-side symmetry, in the event they had to use the reversed decals and make it look like they were showing the other side of the ship.
I freely admit that deciding that the nubbin is not the turbolift housing and is, in fact, the subspace radio transceiver array, is shameless exploitation of a loophole (no diagram made contemporaneously with the show has ever identified just what that thing is, only that the bridge is under the dome), but that approach also solves more than a few problems, not the least of which is having to deal with the whole mess of trying to line up the turboshaft with that damn thing.
Well, so-called "glass cockpits" aren't exactly what most people think of.
First off... you always... ALWAYS... have old-fashioned backup instruments. Everything that you really need to be able to fly, exists in the "old-fashioned" type (altimeter, compass, AoA, airspeed, coordinated turn indicator, etc, etc). This is for exactly the idea that's being discussed here... "glass cockpit" controls are dramatically less reliable, are subject to interference and external manipulation, etc.
Second... the so-called "glass cockpit" doesn't use touch-panel glass panes like we saw in Trek. Rather, you have a series of physical buttons and dials mounted around the perimeter of the screen. (There have been a very few versions that have been tried that had "pen interface" screens - typically for use in radar-map target identification and so forth - but still keep the perimeter buttons for primarily control.)
On the MFD panel, there is a region around the outer edge of the display pane which is reserved for displayed labels, relating the current function of the button or dial in whatever mode you're operating in. And inside of that "'frame" region, you have the main display. Most are monochrome, but some are color. Generally speaking, the color ones are used more often in civilian applications while the monochrome (typically green or red) ones are more often used in combat aircraft. The use of the monochrome type is desirable because it interferes less with night vision.
The point - "glass cockpit" designs are always supplemental... the old-fashioned controls are always present and the pilot must know how to use those. The more advanced (but less reliable) system is there for convenience and ease of operation. And "glass cockpit" concepts still, always, incorporate physical controls for the user interface mechanism. There are no "trek-style" or "ipod-style" touchpads... not because of reliability but because of the greatly increased likelihood of operator error if a real tactile-feedback control isn't present.
Well, that's out of necessity more than just a choice.
Are you sure? Because every piece of tech I've read or seen on subs has the helm placed to the for end of the bridge, on the left side when standing looking fore, facing forward. The station located to the helmsman's left, on the wall with his back toward the right is the plainsman, the person who controls the ships plains and as such determines rise and dive angles. This is why they are placed as they are as the level bubble in front of them would indicate the angle.
It is a very big psychological reason, and would play a strong reason when issuing maneuvering orders. Basic human understanding is based on our inner ear and visual perceptions. Up, Down, Left, Right, Forward, Back. As tension and stress rise, instinctive response to orders falls into place, and doing math to correct based on altered positing angles of the control center make that diffacault.
Okay, that would mean there's a psychological reason to have the helm station facing forward relative to the layout of the bridge, but if you're in a spaceship with inertial dampers so that accelerations aren't felt, there's no functional reason why the bridge as a whole has to face forward (as, indeed, it doesn't in TOS).
I know you've been active on the BBS for years... longer than I have, I'm sure... but I've seen this conversation (almost verbatim) carried through... what, maybe a couple dozen times?
The fact is, sadly, that many people think that there's a legitimate "psychological" element of real "facing forward" that applies... because that's it just "seems right" to them (for whatever reason).
That there is no practical reason to worry about that in any vessel that doesn't make "on a dime" type turns, and that with Trekkian "anti-acceleration forcefields" this is a total non-issue... well, that's not what counts, it seems, because it's PERCEPTION that we're talking about here. Not "perception of the people driving the ship" but rather "perception of the audience member."
I think I may just stop discussing it altogether, because the two sides (those who try to see this in terms of logic and practical application, and those who see it purely as entertainment and don't really care about the practical side of things) will NEVER really agree on these matters, will they?
It's sad, but I think it's a lost cause.
Ah, yes.. the old "California split level" design treatment for the Nostromo bridge. I always liked that!
The writers and producers who actually worked on the show would differ with you on that. As far as they were concerned, it DID face forward. The placement of the turbolift was a non issue.
Are you talking about the TOS Bridge deal, because I hate that argument myself.
It seems right from the spatial understanding of 3D within the human mind. I know that I can tell direction even in a windowless room, but I've been told I have the direction sense of a bird, so I may be more sensitive to something.
Now, I make the point that there are times where my stance on this changes, primarily under two points. One weightlessness. Any bridge designed to function in microgravity or zero-g would not have to waste space orientating itself to a forward or "earth based" 3d arrangement. The second is when the propulsion of the ship provides the gravity. This is when aft is down, fore is up, ect.
And we've had many mentions in trek lit, and examples on the tv show, where motion and maneuvers are not fully compensated by the inertial dampeners. In these instances the movement would be felt, and orientating the bridge in the "earth 3d" layout would be best because it would reduce the risk of motion sickness associated with movement or space sickness.
I think I may just stop discussing it altogether, because the two sides (those who try to see this in terms of logic and practical application, and those who see it purely as entertainment and don't really care about the practical side of things) will NEVER really agree on these matters, will they?
It's sad, but I think it's a lost cause.
I hope you won't leave the thread, because I really liked your first post in this thread.
Check out Andrew Probert's Concept Bridge for the Unfilimed TV Series
Starhunt. I googled Roger Burlingame david gerrold and found his drawings on line at a blog web site and it shows some interesting parallels to his TNG work a nice bridge design that
I liked. for a small ship
^I found it, looks cool:
http://bsmbow.blogspot.com/
Scroll down a bit to see the design sketches. You can almost see the origins of a lot of the TNG designs in it.
http://bsmbow.blogspot.com/
Scroll down a bit to see the design sketches. You can almost see the origins of a lot of the TNG designs in it.
Can someone come up with some valid reasons, from a design perspective, WHY a bridge would not need any forward helm/ conn/ whatever, facing stations, in a space as large as the E's bridge?
After all, there HAS to be some reason for the main viewer not facing forward?
If that's were the main viewer is everything else falls into place. The Captain and helm will more then likely be facing that. Everyone else faces away with their own displays, surrounding the Captain. Incidentally they face away so that the Captain can see all those displays from where he sits. He just spins his chair to whatever and whom ever he wants to see or speak with.
I've given the psychological reason. What rdesign easons are there for NOT doing including that?
The guy designing it, will naturally want to orientate everyone in a natural position IF possible. So why go out of their way to design it otherwise? That's the question really?
After all, there HAS to be some reason for the main viewer not facing forward?
If that's were the main viewer is everything else falls into place. The Captain and helm will more then likely be facing that. Everyone else faces away with their own displays, surrounding the Captain. Incidentally they face away so that the Captain can see all those displays from where he sits. He just spins his chair to whatever and whom ever he wants to see or speak with.
I've given the psychological reason. What rdesign easons are there for NOT doing including that?
The guy designing it, will naturally want to orientate everyone in a natural position IF possible. So why go out of their way to design it otherwise? That's the question really?
Last edited:
Well, in the case of TOS, I have an idea... one that's not all that dissimilar to the "real" reason, too.
My idea is that the bridge is basically a shell, and that various stations can be assembled into different locations (though they're semi-permanently bolted into place).
Probably, the original design had the single shaft at the back and the screen at the front (much like what you see on Reliant). That would have been the original plan.
However, that means that anytime anyone entered the bridge, the captain would hear the door open, but would not be able to see what was happening. This would be... distracting, certainly, and probably somewhat disconcerting as well.
So some captains decided to have their bridges rearranged. Obviously, you can't change the location of the lift shaft, but you can move other elements around. So, they'd swap out a couple of the stations at the forward end of the space, and also reorient the command "pad" in the middle to face the screen. It really wouldn't be very difficult to do, would it?
Of course, the next time you did a "clean sheet redesign" of a ship, you'd probably change the lift location, for the very reason I think some of you guys are driving at.
I know I hate having things going on behind me and not being able to tell what it is. So... either the Captain's Chair gets a rear-view-mirror... or you move the stuff around so the captain can glance over his shoulder.
Actually, if I were the one doing the rearranging, I'd probably put the viewscreen on the side, and have the crew facing about 90 degrees offset, for the reasons I gave in my initial post... the important thing is situational awareness, after all, not orientation.
This is true. For the people who actually designed and built the bridge, it faced forward. It's even on-screen as such in 'The Cage', which is a fairly crappy effect by todays standards, but still unmistakably there. In my mind, it faced forward, there was never any question until I saw FJ's thing and went "What the hell?!" So, barring any OS evidence to the contrary I'll stick to saying it's facing forward.
---
I really don't understand why there HAS to be an agreement on this issue though. Either make it face forward or at an angle, whatever makes your personal fanon all warm and fuzzy. Just don't impose your fanon on mine. There's no reason for that.
I don't think that's true. In Matt Jefferies's Phase II redesign, he added a second "nub" behind the bridge to represent the second turbolift. So clearly it was his specific intention that the "nub" at the very rear of the bridge represented the lift; therefore, to him, the viewscreen was facing 36 degrees to port.
True, there were a couple of FX shots suggesting it pointed forward, but those can't be taken too literally. The opening shot of "The Cage" has the bridge aligned more or less frontward relative to the miniature, but the alignment, scale, and zoom rate are far from perfectly matched and the composite is clearly poetic license meant merely to inform the viewer where in the ship the bridge is located and how large a ship it is. It's easy enough to assume the forward orientation is also poetic license so as not to confuse the viewer by having the crew facing sideways instead of forward.
The only other instance I can think of is "Requiem for Methuselah," where we see Kirk looking in through the viewscreen while he's peering in from directly in front of the miniaturized ship. But this is obviously not proof of anything; for one thing, the shot implies that the viewscreen is actually a physical window that Kirk can see through, which is obviously absurd, and for another, it's easy enough to assume that the viewscreen shows a feed from a forward sensor even though it doesn't face forward itself. Again, poetic license that cannot be taken as reliable evidence of architecture.
The producers and directors made the choices they made for dramatic reasons; they were telling stories about characters and events, not scenery. If we wish to analyze the Enterprise as a structure rather than a plot device, we should look to the work of the designers. And Jefferies's views on the subject are clear -- the turbolift is in the back.
But, that design was made in a post-FJ environment, and was made to settle the question once and for all that the bridge faced forward (plus, it was a major refit, so it doesn't necessarily apply to the previous version).
Plus, we've had statements from Bob Justman and David Gerrold that as far as they were concerned at the time the show was actually being made that the bridge faced forward.
Which still begs the question of why anyone would design a bridge like that and not have it face forward. The nub on the back of the dome was on the back of the dome to preserve the symmetry of the model, in those instances where the reversed decals were used, not to make a statement about the internal arrangement of the ship.
Frankly, if they did consider the bridge to be facing 36 degrees to port, that would've been an even easier shot to set up with that zoom-in; just use that angle from behind and slightly to the right of the command chair, and that'd line up the turbolift almost perfectly with the nub on the back of the dome. The fact that they didn't do that speaks volumes.
He never produced a drawing showing the relationship between the bridge interior and the exterior hull, and the only centerline shown in the bridge layout runs from the main viewscreen to communications. It's the turbolift that's off the centerline, not the main viewscreen.
