To avoid derailing Cary's TOS E thread, we're moving the discussion on how the innards fit into the hull, and the reasoning behind the various approaches, to here.
Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley
- Thread starter Captain Robert April
- Start date
Okay, I'll get the ball rolling.
I think going with the aircraft approach towards the design of this ship is, quite frankly, a mistake. Aircraft design kind of requires a supporting infrastructure, like airfields and ground crews, to keep the bird flying. A starship, on the other hand, has to be completely self-sufficient for extended stretches of time, which, to me, indicates more of a naval model.
One of the key aspects of this is the matter of power generation and propulsion.
The aircraft design approach, of having the power generated in the nacelles, is fine and dandy up until the point where one of them breaks down. Then your ship is well and thoroughly screwed. With an airplane, and an engine goes out, you at least have the potential of setting down and working on the engine. Not an option with a starship. Plus, having the engines out on the wings is more for the ground crew's convenience, and is definitely inaccessible to the flight crew while in flight.
Now, let's approach this from the naval perspective. You put your main engines inside the hull, where you can maintain them in a shirtsleeve environment (a big part of Matt Jefferies' design ethic, remember?) and direct the generated power to where it's needed. The nacelles, on the other hand, would strictly be for propulsion, have as few moving parts as possible, because Murphy's Law is always in full effect, so that if anything can go wrong, it'll go wrong in an area where you can do something about it.
Fortunately, there are enough hard data points throughout the series to support this model, and those that point towards the works being in the nacelles are vague enough that they can be tweaked to fit.
I think going with the aircraft approach towards the design of this ship is, quite frankly, a mistake. Aircraft design kind of requires a supporting infrastructure, like airfields and ground crews, to keep the bird flying. A starship, on the other hand, has to be completely self-sufficient for extended stretches of time, which, to me, indicates more of a naval model.
One of the key aspects of this is the matter of power generation and propulsion.
The aircraft design approach, of having the power generated in the nacelles, is fine and dandy up until the point where one of them breaks down. Then your ship is well and thoroughly screwed. With an airplane, and an engine goes out, you at least have the potential of setting down and working on the engine. Not an option with a starship. Plus, having the engines out on the wings is more for the ground crew's convenience, and is definitely inaccessible to the flight crew while in flight.
Now, let's approach this from the naval perspective. You put your main engines inside the hull, where you can maintain them in a shirtsleeve environment (a big part of Matt Jefferies' design ethic, remember?) and direct the generated power to where it's needed. The nacelles, on the other hand, would strictly be for propulsion, have as few moving parts as possible, because Murphy's Law is always in full effect, so that if anything can go wrong, it'll go wrong in an area where you can do something about it.
Fortunately, there are enough hard data points throughout the series to support this model, and those that point towards the works being in the nacelles are vague enough that they can be tweaked to fit.
I see where you're coming from, and that makes a lot of sense. But I would argue that no one services any kind of engine while it's running. With the reactors placed in the nacelles, there's no reason you couldn't stop the ship, turn off then engines, and ride a small lift up the pylons to work on the engines, All in a shirtsleeves environment. This much is more or less stated in FJ's work (I forget if the Technical Manual or the Blueprints) not that that's technically canon.
Anyhow, this project is your baby, so do with it as you please, I'm looking forward to your final arrangement.
--Alex
Anyhow, this project is your baby, so do with it as you please, I'm looking forward to your final arrangement.
--Alex
It's just putting too many eggs into a couple of very exposed baskets to put the power generation aparatus in the nacelles, not to mention adding a lot of unnecessary running around for the crew. Plus, every time we see Scotty making major repairs to the ship's engines, it's always in and around Engineering. And, the only way "That Which Survives" and "Elaan of Troyius" work is for the ship's main power generation being done from one central point inside the hull.
And, as I said in previous versions of this thread, I really don't care what FJ had to say, he was off on too many aspects to give his material any more credence than basic inspiration. As references, I find his material almost useless.
And, as I said in previous versions of this thread, I really don't care what FJ had to say, he was off on too many aspects to give his material any more credence than basic inspiration. As references, I find his material almost useless.
Who wants to talk about the orientation of the bridge? 
I still think that the turbolift is housed in the floor and that the bowling alley occupies the nub directly at the back of the dome.
I remember one of the first things I noticed about the bridge was that it was probably off centre- It was also one of the first things I read in my first tech manual. SO- I'm sticking by the nub being the aft TL, but that being said, I'm 100% convinced that there'd be an alternate way on and off that bridge.
There has to be an access hatch to a ladder or stairs either through a floor panel, or behind one of the panels beside the viewer. It would be asinine not to have an emergency means- even though they've been stuck on the bridge - ugh.
There has to be an access hatch to a ladder or stairs either through a floor panel, or behind one of the panels beside the viewer. It would be asinine not to have an emergency means- even though they've been stuck on the bridge - ugh.
As far as those on the set were concerned, and those writing and producing the show, the bridge faced forward. When Franz Joseph did his deck plans and tech manual, he basically took one look at the bridge and rather than do the work to figure out how to get it to face forward, he punted.
There's plenty of technobabble rationalizations for how they could point it off to port with no real ill effects, but not one logical, rational reason for why they'd do it in the first place. And, as I mentioned above, creator's intent indicating that they didn't!
The solution that was ultimately arrived at in an earlier version of this thread, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, incorporates the design history of the ship by starting off with the larger dome from the pilots (all indications thus far show that there's plenty of room for the bridge to face forward under that larger dome), then, rather than shorten the dome for the production version, it's lowered inside the B/C superstructure. Remember, the only onscreen evidence we have that the bridge is at the tippy top of the ship is from "The Cage", which is under that bigger dome. No other corroboration is ever made, so, technically, some slight shifting of its location after that point is fair game.
Personally, I rather like this solution. It stays true to the producers' intent, it incorporates the implied history of the ship, and it addresses the oft-cited vulnerability of the bridge by moving it down inside the ship.
There's plenty of technobabble rationalizations for how they could point it off to port with no real ill effects, but not one logical, rational reason for why they'd do it in the first place. And, as I mentioned above, creator's intent indicating that they didn't!
The solution that was ultimately arrived at in an earlier version of this thread, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, incorporates the design history of the ship by starting off with the larger dome from the pilots (all indications thus far show that there's plenty of room for the bridge to face forward under that larger dome), then, rather than shorten the dome for the production version, it's lowered inside the B/C superstructure. Remember, the only onscreen evidence we have that the bridge is at the tippy top of the ship is from "The Cage", which is under that bigger dome. No other corroboration is ever made, so, technically, some slight shifting of its location after that point is fair game.
Personally, I rather like this solution. It stays true to the producers' intent, it incorporates the implied history of the ship, and it addresses the oft-cited vulnerability of the bridge by moving it down inside the ship.
Actually, in one of the interviews on Forbin's page, he essentially admitted that it didn't make any sense to point the bridge anywhere but straight ahead, but he looked at the interior and the exterior, and rather than work out the discrepancy, he just ran with it and moved on to the next item.
In other words, he punted.
In other words, he punted.
Where on Forbin's site? I just poked around there and didn't find any kind of interview with him.
Yeah, I'm familiar with that interview, but based on this and other statements he made elsewhere, I take it to mean that, after due consideration and discussion w/ his daughter and her trek fan friends, who were his touchstone to what the wider fan community would and wouldn't accept, (this was of course before the internet) he decided to keep the bridge the way we saw it rather than 'fix' it by puting the turbolift behind the captains chair. He did, of course, make other 'corrections' that he thought were less controversial, but boy was he wrong! 
Of course much of the above is speculation on my part as well, but you make it sound like FJ was a lazy, sloppy researcher, when in fact he's on record as saying that he went to great lengths to reconcile the various discrepancies he was saddled with, he just made different artistic and technical choices than you and some others have, that's all.
Of course much of the above is speculation on my part as well, but you make it sound like FJ was a lazy, sloppy researcher, when in fact he's on record as saying that he went to great lengths to reconcile the various discrepancies he was saddled with, he just made different artistic and technical choices than you and some others have, that's all.
Not trying to imply he was in any way lazy (good God, he drew the whole thing by hand!); it's a given in a project like this that you tend to pick your battles, and the matter of the bridge is one he chose to avoid. And, as has always been stated and can't be said often enough in some circles, in light of the almost nonexistant accurate reference material at the time, he did a remarkable job. That being said, though, we know better, and it's time to proceed from a position of knowledge and better research. We should always draw a great deal of inspiration from FJ and what he accomplished, but let's not use sentiment as an excuse to hold on to inaccuracies.
Back to the turbolift's position, frankly, moving the turbolift doors directly behind the captain is not, and never has been considered, an option, for the simple matter of those 79 TOS episodes, 22 TAS episodes, and the handful of other times since then that we've seen the bridge. If I were to put those doors back there, I'd be justifiably crucified, especially if I was still operating under the pretence of making this all work with what we saw and heard during TOS.
Once we get those final analysis pics from Shaw, things should become clearer.
Back to the turbolift's position, frankly, moving the turbolift doors directly behind the captain is not, and never has been considered, an option, for the simple matter of those 79 TOS episodes, 22 TAS episodes, and the handful of other times since then that we've seen the bridge. If I were to put those doors back there, I'd be justifiably crucified, especially if I was still operating under the pretence of making this all work with what we saw and heard during TOS.
Once we get those final analysis pics from Shaw, things should become clearer.
This is all fair enough, and I certainly understand your desire to stay with what we saw onscreen, and everyone has they're own take on things which is perfectly legit and needs no justification. But, I don't think more or better research is really the issue here, we've always known what the problem is/was, and it goes back to the "designers entent" you mentioned. MJ intended for the bridge to face forward (we know this from interviews where he said as much) but we also know that he intended the little nub at the back of the bridge dome on the model to be the top of the turbolift shaft as a way of indicating scale and, more importantly, we know he intended this because the turbolift display on the bridge shows it as such! We also 'know' or logically conclude therefrom, that an alteration accured early in production, either during the disign phase, or later during the construction phase of the bridge, when somebody decided, for dramatic purposes, to move the turbolft off the centerline (behind the captain's chair) to its now familiar location. This was probably not MJ's idea and certainly not his intent, but we've been saddled with this "mistake" every since. This is the problem in a nutshell, and no amount of additional knowledge or research has altered these basic assesments.
So, if we want to stay true to "designer's intent", as you say, then the only solution really, is to relocate the T/L on the bridge to its original location, this has the added benefit of being the way 'it really would have been built'. On the other hand, if you want to conform to what we saw onscreen, as you are want to do, then the only real solution is to offset the entire bridge as many have done. These two criteria you've set for yourself, "designers intent" and "operating under the pretence of making this all work with what we saw and heard during TOS", are therefore contradictory and self canceling, and no amount of 'fudging' such as lowering the bridge by a half deck or whole deck, or assuming the T/L shunts sideways (both also against "designer intent" by the way) is going to get you out of the intellectual corner you've pianted yourself into, and besides, such 'fudging' only adds to the structural flaws and unecessary complexity of the design and only serves to compound the original inconsistancy. The old adage applies here, 'two wrongs don't make a right'.
These are the considerations that would have went through FJ's mind as he pondered what to do about the bridge discrepancy. I do not "use sentiment as an excuse to hold on to inaccuracies" but I submit that it is you who are doing this, as the "inacuracy" if you will, is with the original production, not with FJ's solution, which not only makes elegant use of Occam's razer, but also the K.I.S.S. principle as well, which is the hallmark of all great designs, and which all other solutions to the problem miserably fail to do.
Anywho, I've rambled enough for today, so in closing let me just reiterate; Everyone has a right to interpret Star Trek the way they want and to make deck plans however they see fit, and nobody should feel they have to justify what they do! If you want the bridge to face forward and also find some way to stay true to what we saw onscreen, then more power to ya! Just be intelllectualy honest with yourself and admit that you're doing it that way because you want to, not because of some contradictory apeal to "designers intent and staying true to what we saw onscreen.
Last edited:
OK, so TV Guide version of TIN MAN's post:
Creative thinking that solves the both interior and exterior problems at the same time isn't allowed. We should force ourselves to live with a mistake.
Are you a Catholic priest? Because that's the only other place I've ever heard that logic - pain & suffering=good, happiness=bad.
Creative thinking that solves the both interior and exterior problems at the same time isn't allowed. We should force ourselves to live with a mistake.
Are you a Catholic priest? Because that's the only other place I've ever heard that logic - pain & suffering=good, happiness=bad.
HaHa, very funny.
You must suffer from ADD, since you felt the need to summerize my post, but yet couldn't take the time or effort to read it, or reply to it, correctly? Points you missed, "everyone has they're own take on things which is perfectly legit and needs no justification" and this, "Everyone has a right to interpret Star Trek the way they want and to make deck plans however they see fit, and nobody should feel they have to justify what they do! If you want the bridge to face forward and also find some way to stay true to what we saw onscreen, then more power to ya!" And since I was at pains to point out that everybody has different views that are equally valid, and you seem to have a hard time understanding that, then I should clarify also, that terms like "creative thinking" or what "solves" a problem constitutes, is also open to personal interpretation. No where did I say, or imply, that anything was "not allowed" or that "we should force ourselves to live with mistakes" you pulled that hat out of a rabbit, and that's no easy trick!
And this, "Are you a Catholic priest? Because that's the only other place I've ever heard that logic - pain & suffering=good, happiness=bad", comes right out of thin air, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said, but prompts me to ask, are you? If not, you've missed your calling, because I've never experianced such intolerance to opposing view pionts as you display, outside the church itself, perhaps you should consider taking vows, with your attitude and penchent for misrepresentation, you'll be Pope in no time.
I did read your whole post, and it basically came off as a nicely worded version of "No matter which way you want the bridge to face, you're equally as wrong as someone who wants it to face the other way, and since MJ and FJ are both dead, who the hell are you to say what they were thinking one way or the other, so since you'll never be the last word on the subject anyway, just live with the mistake instead of trying to fix it" (That last part was where my mind pulled in the religious reference...read between the lines.)
Sinking the bridge a few feet into the hull is no more or less valid than forcing it to be all the way into the dome. IF ANYTHING, the opening shot of "The Cage" is proof enough that the bridge was always intended to face forward, regardless of what happened with the turbolift position change. And, in a related vein, there were several episodes where the turbolift was shown to be capable of lateral movement, so having it cheat sideways 6 feet behind the bridge to get from the door to the tube makes perfect sense.
CRA's solution of sinking the bridge a bit DOES stay true to what we saw on screen - find a shot from any episode that shows that it isn't that way.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Find anything? I didn't think so.
AND, for the final nail in the coffin, so to speak, I quote part of the response to an email I wrote to Richard Jeffries, Matt Jeffries' brother and author of "Beyond The Clouds", his biography of brother Matt's life.
Sinking the bridge a few feet into the hull is no more or less valid than forcing it to be all the way into the dome. IF ANYTHING, the opening shot of "The Cage" is proof enough that the bridge was always intended to face forward, regardless of what happened with the turbolift position change. And, in a related vein, there were several episodes where the turbolift was shown to be capable of lateral movement, so having it cheat sideways 6 feet behind the bridge to get from the door to the tube makes perfect sense.
CRA's solution of sinking the bridge a bit DOES stay true to what we saw on screen - find a shot from any episode that shows that it isn't that way.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Find anything? I didn't think so.
AND, for the final nail in the coffin, so to speak, I quote part of the response to an email I wrote to Richard Jeffries, Matt Jeffries' brother and author of "Beyond The Clouds", his biography of brother Matt's life.
Which is exactly what we're doing - using our imaginations...just like Matt wanted us to.
Similar threads
