Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

[Captain Robert April]

Why would they jump through so many flaming hoops just to save a briefing room?

 

[AudioBridge]

Why would they jump through so many flaming hoops just to save a briefing room?

Replace the number of people you can stuff in the briefing room with photon torpedoes and the space seems even more valuable over the long haul.

And by that logic, why jump through so many flaming hoops to make the bridge face perfectly forward? Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps the captain can have his bridge oriented however he likes around the turbolift? If Kirk is concerned with seeing who enters the bridge he has it his way. If the next captain doesn't care he can have the workstations moved so that it is behind the captains chair. No big deal.

 

[TIN_MAN]

There was also a clear, and documented, intent for the Enterprise to be the first example of the seventeenth starship class, but that went by the wayside pretty early on, the second she was decided to be a Constitution class starship (if she was the first, she'd be an Enterprise class).

For the nub, we have a chain of logic and about forty years of assumptions. The nub is where it is so that the model remain symmetrical. If it was on one side, the whole reversed decal routine would've been a waste of paper and film.

If your first sentence was intended to bolster your second, then it fails to do so as it has nothing to do with it, or anything, regarding this discussion. If you're replying to my answer to Ziz then you're forgeting that the example you give of "designer intent" was never established onscreen, the examples I'm giving were!

As for that second sentence, You do realize, don't you, that saying something over and over again doesn't make it any more true, don't you? If we're to make any real progress and refrain from going around in circles, let's dispense with this straw man once and for all.

First of all, the placement of the "nub" is not, and has never been, the issue. Because all the facts we have -both onscreen and off- reinforce each other to the effect that the nub is exactly where it is supposed to be, which is exactly where MJ wanted it to be, because it's the T/L housing at the top of the shaft which, in turn, is also exactly where MJ wanted it to be! And pay close attention to my next two points, as they're really the heart of the matter. Not only did MJ never change his mind about these arrangements, but niether should we, and for the same reasons, because there is not, nor has there ever been, any self-controdiction -onscreen or off- about these elements and they're arrangement!

Those who try to make this issue one about the position of the "nub" on the model, instead of the T/L alcove on the bridge set, have got the horse before the cart. The problem all along has been that the position of the alcove is in the "wrong" place to allow for a forward facing bridge and a T/L cab that lines up with the outer housing and vertical shaft as we we know it to be! This, if anything, is the only thing the zoom in shot from "The Cage" can be used to prove?

Now, I hope the above is clear enough, so let's move on and dispense, once again, with the "nub is only there for symmetry" argument. Aside from being just speculation, and therefore inadmissable as evidence or proof of anything related to the present discussion, it's largely errelevant! Since it's position agrees with every fact we know about the location of the T/L shaft and upper housing, going back to the earliest days of production, where else would it be? Even if symmetry had ever been a consideration for relocating it after the bridge miss-match was noticed (if it ever was) this says nothing about it's original location. Since symmetry concerns only apply to the 11 footer, then explain why the 3 footer, which was completed and filmed before the 11 footer was finished (or not as the case may be) also had a symetrical nub? This would have likely been before time and budget constraints forced the need for the "reverse the film trick" solution due to lack of detail on the big model, so the 3 footer stongly suggests, if not proves, that the placement of the nub has nothing to do with symmetry, and everything to do with designer intent!

Now, let's establish some facts.

Only three things on your long list are actually facts!

The bridge was designed and built before the overall size of the ship was finalized, although there are certainly indications that the final size of 947' was set by the time filming began, certainly by the time the three-footer was finished.

I'm not sure that all this is strictly factual, but I'll let you have it. This makes sense as it suggests that it was the comparison of the bridge set w/the bridge dome that indicated to MJ that the ship, as concieved, was too small and needed to be doubled in size? whether a discrepancy was noticed between T/L positions at this time is unknown? But that the 3 footer was finished this early does add weight to my point above about the nub.

There is no evidence that the turbolift was ever considered to be directly behind the captain's chair, and the turbolift alcove was not one of the wild sections.

Only the second part of this is is strictly factual as far as we know, as for the first part? It depends on what you consider evidence, since we agree that the bridge was intended to face forwards, and it's demonstrably a fact that the "nub" is the T/L housing (and which you agree it probably was) then this alone is evidence that it is the T/L alcove on the set that is missplaced, and therefore must have been moved at some point. Add to this the likely reason for such a move had to do with "dramatic" considerations" and "prefered camera angles" niether of which MJ or PG would have had any final say so in, and its not hard to make a case. Also the number of consoles would be equal on both sides, and balance out the design better, with the T/L alcove behind the C/C. Also the break in the railings line up better this way as well, not forcing one to walk in and around to access the lower level. all these and others besides tell us that there's something not quite right with the bridge as we have it.
One last consideration, for what it's worth, MJ's Phase Two concept drawings of the bridge show a T/L behind the C/C configuration, showing that he at least was not adverse to the Idea, and so this suggests, at least, that he may have designed the original that way as well? On the the other hand, it's likely that Pato Guzman was the one who designed the basic elements of the bridge, while MJ did most of the console design, and of course, the details for the model, so perhaps we have here a hint of rivalry or disagreement between the two, as to where things should go? Of, course this doesn't help us much?

Digging into the minutiae, the only shot we have giving any kind of relation between the bridge interior and the exterior is the clumsily executed zoom we saw in "The Cage", in which the intent is clear that the bridge faces forward (and since this intent made it on screen, it carries more weight).

And again, it also underscores that the position of the T/L alcove, not the "nub", is the fly in the ointment here. Since the T/L housing is clearly visable here, and in other onscreen evidence, in the form of the T/L position display, among others, then this combined evidence holds more weight, certainly more than any fan speculation to the contrary.

We also know that those who actually worked on the show considered the bridge to face directly ahead. The placement of the turbolift wasn't considered an issue, and I suspect that if they were ever pressed on the issue, they'd just say that the thing slides over before going down and then ask why you're so worried over something this trivial.

I've already dispenced with this straw man, this is speculation, not fact, and it will always remain so, no matter how many times you repeat it!!!! As for what they'd say if asked? I wouldn't ask, as they're opinions are of no value to me, but if pressed they might just as easily say the bridge is rotated! And it's precisely because it's a trivial matter to them, that I wouldn't ask in the first place!

OK CRA I'm outa time for now, I'll be back to address the rest of your post when I've got time. Ta-ta for now.

****************************************************

OK I'm back now,

Early indications are that the larger dome is large enough to accomodate a forward facing bridge.

That much we're all agreed on, right? Right.

Well, yes. But this is not to say that just because a thing can be done, it should be done. This accomodates what we saw in "The Cage" but I'm not convinced yet that this is ultimatly the right technical way to proceed?

So, the model is reworked for production, and part of the process includes sawing off the bottom half of the bridge dome, most likely for aesthetic purposes (the shorter dome does look more balanced).

This may have played a factor? More likely it was because by this time the theoretical size of the fictional ship was firmly established, and the hieght to width ratio was inconsistant, so this was an attempt to 'fix' the problem? Unfortunatly because of the three "windows" added to the second pilot version dome, it was cut down so as to eliminate these intirely, which left a dome that was too low (although about the right diameter).

Now, within the show's universe, one of two things happened:

1) a shorter dome was fitted, forcing a nonsensical realignment of the bridge interior, rearrangement of the turbolift shafts, recalibration of the inertial dampeners to maintain the illusion of a forward facing bridge, while not only maintaining the bridge's position in the most vulnerable location on the ship, it's now even more vulnerable because now there's less hull around it, or...

2) the whole works was lowered down roughly one deck height, thus increasing protection for the bridge, requiring a minimum of physical changes to the ship, and only losing a briefing room and a few feet of turboshaft.

You tell me which makes more sense.

This is a false choice, for several reasons, first of all; You're forgeting that it is generally agreed that bridge domes are modules that can be "plugged in" or removed with relative ease. so this would make the redesign easier, and it's possible, but not likely, that the bridge was replaced altogether? Second of all, there's nothing nonsensical about it, and only the lateral shafts behind the bridge would need to go, and in any case the enertial dampeners don't have to be modified. The bridge is vulnerable either way, but it still gets lowered abit this way, and there's just as much hull around as before, plus its now a smaller target which is probably the main consideration anyway!
As for your second option, you'd lose more than a few feet of shaft and the briefing room, you'd lose for all intents and purposes, all of deck two! Besides if we look at this from strictly a fictional point of view, then none of this would be designed the way it is in the first place!

Finally, you're overlooking a another alternative, which I prefer, and that is that what we see on TV is an imperfect dramatic production, where budget and time constraints forced capitulation to these realities and mistakes were made. But in the ideal situation of the fictional universe as concieved, these mistakes were not made, so the bridge faces forward because the T/L is behind the captain's chair and and everything else matches up perfectly! So any deck plans ought to reflect this Ideal fictional ship, not its onscreen counterpart with all the associated inconsistancies!
This, IMHO, is the achilles heel and fatal flaw in carrying the "way we saw it onscreen" aproach to extreems. It forces us to leave common sense behind and lose ourselves in a maze of our own devising by insisting that things must be "just so", all the while reinventing and reinterpreting anything that doesn't fit until we've convinced ourselves that it "really does make sense"!

 

[Captain Robert April]

Why would they jump through so many flaming hoops just to save a briefing room?

Replace the number of people you can stuff in the briefing room with photon torpedoes and the space seems even more valuable over the long haul.

And by that logic, why jump through so many flaming hoops to make the bridge face perfectly forward? Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps the captain can have his bridge oriented however he likes around the turbolift? If Kirk is concerned with seeing who enters the bridge he has it his way. If the next captain doesn't care he can have the workstations moved so that it is behind the captains chair. No big deal.

Is it your contention that the photon torpedoes are stored directly under the bridge? Or that somehow, losing one briefing room has some effect on the photon torpedo storage down on the lower level of the primary hull? Which was probably identical to the amount of storage space they had before they lowered the bridge?

 

[Captain Robert April]

There was also a clear, and documented, intent for the Enterprise to be the first example of the seventeenth starship class, but that went by the wayside pretty early on, the second she was decided to be a Constitution class starship (if she was the first, she'd be an Enterprise class).

For the nub, we have a chain of logic and about forty years of assumptions. The nub is where it is so that the model remain symmetrical. If it was on one side, the whole reversed decal routine would've been a waste of paper and film.

If your first sentence was intended to bolster your second, then it fails to do so as it has nothing to do with it, or anything, regarding this discussion. If you're replying to my answer to Ziz then you're forgeting that the example you give of "designer intent" was never established onscreen, the examples I'm giving were!

As for that second sentence, You do realize, don't you, that saying something over and over again doesn't make it any more true, don't you? If we're to make any real progress and refrain from going around in circles, let's dispense with this straw man once and for all.

First of all, the placement of the "nub" is not, and has never been, the issue. Because all the facts we have -both onscreen and off- reinforce each other to the effect that the nub is exactly where it is supposed to be, which is exactly where MJ wanted it to be, because it's the T/L housing at the top of the shaft which, in turn, is also exactly where MJ wanted it to be! And pay close attention to my next two points, as they're really the heart of the matter. Not only did MJ never change his mind about these arrangements, but niether should we, and for the same reasons, because there is not, nor has there ever been, any self-controdiction -onscreen or off- about these elements and they're arrangement!

There is if you're trying to face the bridge off to port. Which is what you're trying to do. That's contradictory to what was shown on screen, namely that the bridge faces forward.

Those who try to make this issue one about the position of the "nub" on the model, instead of the T/L alcove on the bridge set, have got the horse before the cart.

And rearranging the insides to fit that goddamned nub isn't?

The problem all along has been that the position of the alcove is in the "wrong" place to allow for a forward facing bridge and a T/L cab that lines up with the outer housing and vertical shaft as we we know it to be! This, if anything, is the only thing the zoom in shot from "The Cage" can be used to prove?

Everything fits fine under the larger pilot dome. It's what happened after the pilots is where things get interesting.

Now, I hope the above is clear enough, so let's move on and dispense, once again, with the "nub is only there for symmetry" argument. Aside from being just speculation, and therefore inadmissable as evidence or proof of anything related to the present discussion, it's largely errelevant! Since it's position agrees with every fact we know about the location of the T/L shaft and upper housing, going back to the earliest days of production, where else would it be?

BUT IT DOESN'T MATCH WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE EARLIEST DAYS OF PRODUCTION! When the bridge was built, the ship was still considered to be 540' long; before they'd finished production of the first pilot, they'd inflated the size up to 947'.

And through it all, and all the way to "Turnabout Intruder", the bridge was considered to face forward. That you came to a different conclusion is your problem, not the show's.

Even if symmetry had ever been a consideration for relocating it after the bridge miss-match was noticed (if it ever was) this says nothing about it's original location. Since symmetry concerns only apply to the 11 footer, then explain why the 3 footer, which was completed and filmed before the 11 footer was finished (or not as the case may be) also had a symetrical nub? This would have likely been before time and budget constraints forced the need for the "reverse the film trick" solution due to lack of detail on the big model, so the 3 footer stongly suggests, if not proves, that the placement of the nub has nothing to do with symmetry, and everything to do with designer intent!

You think they just sprung the fact on Roddenberry that only one side of the big model would be finished? You think that little tidbit didn't get mentioned on the budget report? Frankly, this sort of thing sounds just like the sort of thing Roddenberry would've thought up himself, because he was always pulling production tricks like this out of his ass. So the whole thing about how the model had to be symmetrical would have been in the planning FROM THE MILLISECOND THE FINAL DESIGN WAS APPROVED AND RODDENBERRY SIGNED OFF ON THE CONSTRUCTION BLUEPRINTS!

I'm not sure that all this is strictly factual, but I'll let you have it. This makes sense as it suggests that it was the comparison of the bridge set w/the bridge dome that indicated to MJ that the ship, as concieved, was too small and needed to be doubled in size? whether a discrepancy was noticed between T/L positions at this time is unknown? But that the 3 footer was finished this early does add weight to my point above about the nub.

Again, the symmetrical aspect of the model and the use of reversed decals would've been part of the plans from the get-go.

Only the second part of this is is strictly factual as far as we know, as for the first part? It depends on what you consider evidence, since we agree that the bridge was intended to face forwards, and it's demonstrably a fact that the "nub" is the T/L housing (and which you agree it probably was)

The only thing that is "demonstrably a fact" is that it's a piece of dowel rod attached to a wooden hemisphere on a model spaceship. Anything else is strictly supposition, no matter how logical that supposition is arrived at.

...then this alone is evidence that it is the T/L alcove on the set that is missplaced, and therefore must have been moved at some point.

There's not a single shred of evidence that the turbolift was ever anywhere but where it's always been. Not even Pato Guzman's conceptual painting shows how you get onto the bridge.

Add to this the likely reason for such a move had to do with "dramatic" considerations" and "prefered camera angles" niether of which MJ or PG would have had any final say so in, and its not hard to make a case.

The placement of the turbolift had everything to do with dramatic concerns, and Jefferies being the professional that he was (and Guzman being long gone by this point), quite possibly put it there on his own, without any prodding from anybody higher up.

Also the number of consoles would be equal on both sides, and balance out the design better, with the T/L alcove behind the C/C. Also the break in the railings line up better this way as well, not forcing one to walk in and around to access the lower level. all these and others besides tell us that there's something not quite right with the bridge as we have it.

This is starting to remind me of the little debate that was raging about any supposed influence the German film "Silent Star" (better known in the US as "First Spaceship On Venus") had on the development of Star Trek, specifically the set design, with all sort of "evidence" being cited as "absolute proof" that MJ was influenced by that film, and anyone who denied it must be blind.

Then Mike Okuda emailed me to tell me that he asked Matt Jefferies about that very question and it turns out he never saw the film in the first place.

The whole topic kind of whithered away after that.

One last consideration, for what it's worth, MJ's Phase Two concept drawings of the bridge show a T/L behind the C/C configuration, showing that he at least was not adverse to the Idea, and so this suggests, at least, that he may have designed the original that way as well? On the the other hand, it's likely that Pato Guzman was the one who designed the basic elements of the bridge, while MJ did most of the console design, and of course, the details for the model, so perhaps we have here a hint of rivalry or disagreement between the two, as to where things should go? Of, course this doesn't help us much?

1) The Phase II ship is significantly different than the original ship, so a direct comparison is ludicrous. Also, by the time he was brought in to do the redesign, FJ's stuff had been out for a few years and the damage had been done. So the two nubs on the dome, if anything, were there to make it abundantly clear that the bridge faced forward, and nobody was gonna come along after the fact and screw with that idea again.

2) Go back and study your history. Pato Guzman left the show very early, but even when he was there, the bridge was always Jefferies' baby. Other than being a round room with a large viewscreen at the top of the ship, Guzman had very little to do with the designing of the bridge. Jefferies, on the other hand, was always very specific about how he designed the bridge, the approach he took, and the concepts behind the thing. Oddly enough, the one thing nobody apparently asked him about was the frelling turbolift, at least not in any interview that's ever surfaced.

And again, it also underscores that the position of the T/L alcove, not the "nub", is the fly in the ointment here. Since the T/L housing is clearly visable here, and in other onscreen evidence, in the form of the T/L position display, among others, then this combined evidence holds more weight, certainly more than any fan speculation to the contrary.

I'm not operating on fan speculation, I'm operating on the producers' decision, that the bridge faces forward. Period, end of discussion on that end. It faced foward. Deal with it. Your examination of your AMT model, lo, these many years ago, was flawed and brought you to an erroneous conclusion.

As for what they'd say if asked? I wouldn't ask, as they're opinions are of no value to me...

The opinions of the people who actually made the show are of no value to you? Who the fuck died and made you king of all Star Trek?

So, the model is reworked for production, and part of the process includes sawing off the bottom half of the bridge dome, most likely for aesthetic purposes (the shorter dome does look more balanced).

This may have played a factor? More likely it was because by this time the theoretical size of the fictional ship was firmly established, and the hieght to width ratio was inconsistant, so this was an attempt to 'fix' the problem?

I'd like to remind you that neither Rick Sternbach, Andrew Probert, nor Mike Okuda were working on Star Trek at this time. Nobody did those kinds of comparisons in those days (in fact, I think the first time anybody actually did an overlay of the exterior of the ship over the bridge set was when Rick did this for Voyager; that's right, not even TNG went into that level of detail).

Now, within the show's universe, one of two things happened:

1) a shorter dome was fitted, forcing a nonsensical realignment of the bridge interior, rearrangement of the turbolift shafts, recalibration of the inertial dampeners to maintain the illusion of a forward facing bridge, while not only maintaining the bridge's position in the most vulnerable location on the ship, it's now even more vulnerable because now there's less hull around it, or...

2) the whole works was lowered down roughly one deck height, thus increasing protection for the bridge, requiring a minimum of physical changes to the ship, and only losing a briefing room and a few feet of turboshaft.

You tell me which makes more sense.

This is a false choice, for several reasons, first of all; You're forgeting that it is generally agreed that bridge domes are modules that can be "plugged in" or removed with relative ease. so this would make the redesign easier, and it's possible, but not likely, that the bridge was replaced altogether?

I'm not forgetting anything. In fact, the whole concept depends on the whole "bridge module" concept. In short, all they did was deepen the socket.

Second of all, there's nothing nonsensical about it,

No bridge in the entire history of shipbuilding has ever faced anywhere but dead ahead. Pointing it off to port is therefore nonsensical.

...and only the lateral shafts behind the bridge would need to go, and in any case the enertial dampeners don't have to be modified.

You do if you don't want your bridge crew to get space sick every time they go to warp and are pulled to the side instead of straight back. Good grief, have you even watched the damn show?

The bridge is vulnerable either way, but it still gets lowered abit this way, and there's just as much hull around as before, plus its now a smaller target which is probably the main consideration anyway!

By that logic, why not just put 'em in environmental suits and have the control panels out on the hull? They'd be impossible to hit and have an unobstructed view of their surroundings!

As for your second option, you'd lose more than a few feet of shaft and the briefing room, you'd lose for all intents and purposes, all of deck two!

Have you seen Deck 2? There ain't much there in the first place.

Besides if we look at this from strictly a fictional point of view, then none of this would be designed the way it is in the first place!

Maybe, but we're not discussing how any of us would design the thing, we're discussing the thing as presented.

Which brings us to this gem...

Finally, you're overlooking a another alternative, which I prefer, and that is that what we see on TV is an imperfect dramatic production, where budget and time constraints forced capitulation to these realities and mistakes were made. But in the ideal situation of the fictional universe as concieved, these mistakes were not made, so the bridge faces forward because the T/L is behind the captain's chair and and everything else matches up perfectly! So any deck plans ought to reflect this Ideal fictional ship, not its onscreen counterpart with all the associated inconsistancies!
This, IMHO, is the achilles heel and fatal flaw in carrying the "way we saw it onscreen" aproach to extreems. It forces us to leave common sense behind and lose ourselves in a maze of our own devising by insisting that things must be "just so", all the while reinventing and reinterpreting anything that doesn't fit until we've convinced ourselves that it "really does make sense"!

Revisionist twaddle.

And as such, has absolutely no place in this discussion.

 

[AudioBridge]

Why would they jump through so many flaming hoops just to save a briefing room?

Replace the number of people you can stuff in the briefing room with photon torpedoes and the space seems even more valuable over the long haul.

And by that logic, why jump through so many flaming hoops to make the bridge face perfectly forward? Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps the captain can have his bridge oriented however he likes around the turbolift? If Kirk is concerned with seeing who enters the bridge he has it his way. If the next captain doesn't care he can have the workstations moved so that it is behind the captains chair. No big deal.

Is it your contention that the photon torpedoes are stored directly under the bridge? Or that somehow, losing one briefing room has some effect on the photon torpedo storage down on the lower level of the primary hull? Which was probably identical to the amount of storage space they had before they lowered the bridge?

No, just trying to point out how important every lick of space is on a ship like the Enterprise. If maximizing space isn't an important part of your project, then nevermind

 

[Mytran]

Whew, put those phasers down before I get hurt!

Can't offer much more than that I'm afraid, as both arguments have very good merits and it's also a question I've been wrestling with for years. However, I think that trying to revise the ship into what it "should" or "ought" to have been is a bit of a slippery slope...After all, if it was built sensibly not only would the lift be at the back of a forward facing bridge, but there'd also be more than one exit, the dorsal would be thicker and stronger, fewer windows on the engineering hull, wider pylon/nacelle attachment points, etc etc etc.
And yes, there'd be a bowling alley

 

[TIN_MAN]

Whew, put those phasers down before I get hurt!

Can't offer much more than that I'm afraid, as both arguments have very good merits and it's also a question I've been wrestling with for years. However, I think that trying to revise the ship into what it "should" or "ought" to have been is a bit of a slippery slope...After all, if it was built sensibly not only would the lift be at the back of a forward facing bridge, but there'd also be more than one exit, the dorsal would be thicker and stronger, fewer windows on the engineering hull, wider pylon/nacelle attachment points, etc etc etc.
And yes, there'd be a bowling alley

Oh, I agree completly, that's what I said above...
"Besides if we look at this from strictly a fictional point of view, then none of this would be designed the way it is in the first place!" My whole point regarding this aspect of the issue is that this is not our sandbox were playing in, and we have to take things as they are and were intended to be, and not inject excesive real world logic into it, because then we might as well go play in our own sandbox where things can be just exactly like we want them to be.

 

[Ziz]

My whole point regarding this aspect of the issue is that this is not our sandbox were playing in, and we have to take things as they are and were intended to be, and not inject excesive real world logic into it, because then we might as well go play in our own sandbox where things can be just exactly like we want them to be.

But if you're not going to put any kind of "real world logic" into it, then the whole project is reduced to simple manual labor of drawing on paper what was seen on screen. Where's the creativity in that?

 

[Captain Robert April]

No, just trying to point out how important every lick of space is on a ship like the Enterprise. If maximizing space isn't an important part of your project, then nevermind

Maximizing space also means not wasting it on something you don't need, like another briefing room. Plus, we're not talking about an Apollo command module. The Enterprise is the size of a modern day aircraft carrier. Live a little.

 

[TIN_MAN]

My whole point regarding this aspect of the issue is that this is not our sandbox were playing in, and we have to take things as they are and were intended to be, and not inject excesive real world logic into it, because then we might as well go play in our own sandbox where things can be just exactly like we want them to be.

But if you're not going to put any kind of "real world logic" into it, then the whole project is reduced to simple manual labor of drawing on paper what was seen on screen. Where's the creativity in that?

I didn't say we weren't going to put any "real world logic" into it, I said we shouldn't inject excessive "real world logic" into it, there's a differance. In fact, one of my main points in this discussion all along, has been to advocate using "real world logic" in how we go about choosing the best alternative to the bridge miss-match problem, while staying within the bounds of the structures as we have them. Also, there's a difference between creative thinking and creative accounting, starting out with a pre-concieved notion and then forcing things to fit this notion by reinventing and repurposing established design, is an example of the latter! and in any case, the real creativity in a project like this is in designing the 90% of the ship we didn't see onscreen.

 

[Probert]

I'd like to remind you that neither Rick Sternbach, Andrew Probert, nor Mike Okuda were working on Star Trek at this time. Nobody did those kinds of comparisons in those days (in fact, I think the first time anybody actually did an overlay of the exterior of the ship over the bridge set was when Rick did this for Voyager; that's right, not even TNG went into that level of detail).

Sorry, but TNG actually did pay attention to that level of detail.

Exteriors & interiors that don't match are a pet peeve of mine so I do as much as I can to get all that right. Rick & Mike were pretty much with me on that... not to mention Herman Zimmerman. When I suggested to Herman that the transporter stair-step should also serve as a lift (equal access), he priced out what it would cost to drill through the concrete and make it actually work.

Now back when Star Trek first appeared, nobody expected it to be the breakthrough 'next-level' of Science Fiction it became. And in those days, nobody even imagined people would be hypothesizing about their little production... probably not even Gene... forty years after it was canceled. Nowadays, designers are more aware of that level of delightful scrutiny and (hopefully) design for it.

Andrew-

 

[Ziz]

Andrew, while you're here, can we get your $0.0728 (adjusted for inflation) on the TOS bridge alignment issue as someone who's worked on at least two incarnations of Trek? Aside from the various mathematical arguments of bridge/dome size, which version makes more sense - drop it into the hull facing forward and have the turbolift cheat sideways on its journey or twist the whole bridge sideways to gain the couple of feet of height on the next deck down?

 

[Probert]

Andrew, while you're here, can we get your $0.0728 (adjusted for inflation) on the TOS bridge alignment issue as someone who's worked on at least two incarnations of Trek? Aside from the various mathematical arguments of bridge/dome size, which version makes more sense - drop it into the hull facing forward and have the turbolift cheat sideways on its journey or twist the whole bridge sideways to gain the couple of feet of height on the next deck down?

Like Captain Robert April says, all bridges face forward. I was shocked and really thrown when first seeing how Frans Joseph's plans tweaked the orientation to port, fitting (more or less) the exterior detailing. I don't like it that way and wouldn't be too put off if it were reoriented forward (sliding & adjusting) to redesignate the cylindrical detail as something else.

Andrew-

 

[Captain Robert April]

I stand corrected on the matter of TNG.

Now, to pass on Rick Sternbach's two slips' worth:

Rick Sternbach said:

I asked Bob Justman about this some years ago, before he passed, and he was of the opinion that the bridge (captain's chair, helm console, etc.) faced forward. And the turbo doors were placed how? Bob basically said "the turbo was placed where it had to go" meaning that it was offset to allow for dramatic entrances, views over Kirk's shoulder, etc. I don't believe that anyone in the production upper levels ever cared about the layout of the "real ship." Ah well.

Facebook is a wonderful thing.

 

[Ziz]

I spoke to Rick in person at WonderFest a few years ago and showed him my (still in progress) work on The Ultimate Bridge (stupid me for not getting a pic of him with it!) We discussed this and he agreed with me and Probert - the bridge faces forward, the turbolift slides sideways at the last second. Sink the bridge a few feet into the hull to make it work.

So, Rick Sternbach and Andrew Probert both agree with a forward facing bridge. Can someone get Okuda in here? If he says it faces forward, we've got a Trifecta of Trek Technicians (say that three times fast!) and we can finally put this issue to rest.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I've asked him...

 

[Mytran]

Since the T.T.T. seem to be accelerating towards a conclusion I'll just throw this thought out there - has anyone ever tried to fit the bridge (rotated or not) into the specs for the originally envisioned 540' enterprise? If space was ever going to be at a premium, I'd imagine it's on that ship!

 

[Mytran]

Sorry, but TNG actually did pay attention to that level of detail....

Andrew-

That's a fabulous picture, thanks very much for posting it. I never realised there was a navigation light right behind the bridge like that - although wouldn't it be constantly flashing light through the transparent dome of the bridge?

 

[TIN_MAN]

“There is if you're trying to face the bridge off to port. Which is what you're trying to do. That's contradictory to what was shown on screen, namely that the bridge faces forward.”

No, I already conceded that “the Cage” shot might be workable, but nothing onscreen exists to guide us one way or the other about the bridge after the dome was lowered, In that case, it is possible that the bridge was rotated to fit, and there’s nothing onscreen to contradict this, that’s all I’m saying. Also, it’s not the only option to “fix” the problem. As for the nub location and purpose, it can be taken as a separate issue by itself independent of the bridge orientation problem; this is what I’m trying to do, establish the fundamentals so we can proceed logically from there.

Those who try to make this issue one about the position of the "nub" on the model, instead of the T/L alcove on the bridge set, have got the horse before the cart.

“And rearranging the insides to fit that goddamned nub isn't?”

Temper, temper mon Capitan! You’re missing the point, since we agree all the onscreen evidence we have indicates that the nub was intended to be the T/L housing, and it’s exactly where it’s supposed to be. And since we agree that ideally, the bridge should face forward (as in “The Cage” zoom in shot) then all the onscreen evidence taken together contradicts itself!

let's move on and dispense, once again, with the "nub is only there for symmetry" argument. Aside from being just speculation, it's largely irrelevant! Since it's position agrees with every fact we know about the location of the T/L shaft and upper housing, going back to the earliest days of production, where else would it be?

BUT IT DOESN'T MATCH WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE EARLIEST DAYS OF PRODUCTION! When the bridge was built, the ship was still considered to be 540' long; before they'd finished production of the first pilot, they'd inflated the size up to 947'.

Do you have a point here? What’s the size of the fictional ship got to do with where the T/L housing was established as being? I specifically said I was only talking about the consistancy of the T/L positions in Onscreen diagrams by MJ, which have never waverd since the earliest days and remained consistant throughout!

And through it all, and all the way to "Turnabout Intruder", the bridge was considered to face forward. That you came to a different conclusion is your problem, not the show's

.

I have not come to “a different conclusion” about the bridge orientation, I disagree with you about how best to make it work, there’s a difference. That “the bridge was always considered to be facing forward” even if true, tells us nothing about how this is supposed to be possible, and still stay true to the facts as we know them. Whether or not the T/L alcove was moved or was always where it was is not the point, either way, it doesn’t match the dome and T/L housing, so a mistake was made and this is the shows fault, not mine.

Since symmetry concerns only apply to the 11 footer, then explain why the 3 footer, which was completed and filmed before the 11 footer was finished (or not as the case may be), also had a symmetrical nub? This would have likely been before time and budget constraints forced the need for the "reverse the film trick" solution due to lack of detail on the big model!

You think they just sprung the fact on Roddenberry that only one side of the big model would be finished? You think that little tidbit didn't get mentioned on the budget report? Frankly, this sort of thing sounds just like the sort of thing Roddenberry would've thought up himself, because he was always pulling production tricks like this out of his ass. So the whole thing about how the model had to be symmetrical would have been in the planning FROM THE MILLISECOND THE FINAL DESIGN WAS APPROVED AND RODDENBERRY SIGNED OFF ON THE CONSTRUCTION BLUEPRINTS!

No, but I think that things were always costing more than they budgeted for, causing them to cut corners at the last minute to save money. Besides if they knew before hand it was going to cost more than they had, why not simply make the model in a smaller scale, or use cheaper materials, etc. etc. so that they could afford to finish the detailing? And this still doesn’t answer why the 3 footer has the symmetrical nub, especially when its original purpose was precisely as a “proof of concept” model for GR to approve the details on, and it was never intended to be onscreen at all, so surely symmetry concerns played no part in the placement of the nub.

Only the second part of this is strictly factual as far as we know, as for the first part? It depends on what you consider evidence, since we agree that the bridge was intended to face forwards, and it's demonstrably a fact that the "nub" is the T/L housing (and which you agree it probably was)

The only thing that is "demonstrably a fact" is that it's a piece of dowel rod attached to a wooden hemisphere on a model spaceship. Anything else is strictly supposition, no matter how logical that supposition is arrived at.

Obviously, I meant that the nub is intended to be the T/L housing, on the fictional ship! But you knew this, this is just you’re feeble attempt at humor, at my expense, which just goes to show you have nothing substantive to offer in rebuttal here. This is underscored by your admission that my point is logically arrived at, and since you can’t fault my logic, you just summarily dismiss it.

...then this alone is evidence that it is the T/L alcove on the set that is misplaced, and therefore must have been moved at some point.

There's not a single shred of evidence that the turbolift was ever anywhere but where it's always been. Not even Pato Guzman's conceptual painting shows how you get onto the bridge.

That’s the problem, there’s so little surviving documentation we’re forced to look at the bridge set itself for clues one way or the other. But there’s no documentation that it always been where it is either! “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” as you always say. And PG’s painting is useless in this regard as it represents an extremely early concept anyway, totally different from what we ended up with.

Add to this the likely reason for such a move had to do with "dramatic" considerations" and "preferred camera angles" neither of which MJ or PG would have had any final say so in, and it’s not hard to make a case.

The placement of the turbolift had everything to do with dramatic concerns, and Jefferies being the professional that he was (and Guzman being long gone by this point), quite possibly put it there on his own, without any prodding from anybody higher up.

Um, this is what I just said above, weren’t you paying attention? And a few quotes down in my original post I already made the point that PG might have been responsible for the T/L alcove placement! You should try reading the entire post before responding to it? But anywho, it’s nice to know you agree with me on these points.

Also the number of consoles would be equal on both sides, with the T/L alcove behind the C/C, also, the break in the railings line up better this way as well. All these and others besides tell us that there's something not quite right with the bridge as we have it.

This is starting to remind me of the little debate that was raging about any supposed influence the German film "Silent Star" (better known in the US as "First Spaceship On Venus") had on the development of Star Trek, specifically the set design, with all sort of "evidence" being cited as "absolute proof" that MJ was influenced by that film, and anyone who denied it must be blind.
Then Mike Okuda emailed me to tell me that he asked Matt Jefferies about that very question and it turns out he never saw the film in the first place.

The whole topic kind of whithered away after that.

What’s this little diversion got to do with anything? I’m not comparing the Bridge with anything else from another film! And even if proof surfaced to the effect that the T/L alcove was always where it is, the observations above would still be valid. Once again this shows that you don’t have a substantive rebuttal to these valid points, so you just tell a little anecdote instead, and hope no one will notice the difference.

One last consideration, for what it's worth, MJ's Phase Two concept drawings of the bridge show a T/L behind the C/C configuration, showing that he at least was not adverse to the Idea, and so he may have designed the original that way as well? On the the other hand, it's likely that Pato Guzman was the one who designed the basic elements of the bridge, while MJ did most of the console design, and of course, the details for the model, so perhaps we have here a hint of rivalry or disagreement between the two, as to where things should go? Of, course this doesn't help us much?

1) The Phase II ship is significantly different than the original ship, so a direct comparison is ludicrous. So the two nubs on the dome, if anything, were there to make it abundantly clear that the bridge faced forward.

I’m not directly comparing the two ships, my point, “for what it’s worth” I said, speaks to the state of mind that MJ was not adverse to the Idea of having the T/L alcove behind the bridge! So we can’t categorically dismiss the possibility that the original was initially designed this way as well. It may not be strictly evidential, but it does open up possibilities.
And so now that it suits your purpose, you’re acknowledging that MJ intended his “nubs” on his bridge to be T/L housings, and that they are there to relate to the interior space? OK, CRA, so which is it, make up your mind, you can’t have both ways!!!

2) Go back and study your history. the bridge was always Jefferies' baby. Guzman had very little to do with the designing of the bridge. Jefferies, on the other hand, was always very specific about how he designed the bridge, the approach he took, and the concepts behind the thing. Oddly enough, the one thing nobody apparently asked him about was the frelling turbolift, at least not in any interview that's ever surfaced.

I based my statements on this from “The Art Of Star Trek” which says this, on page 7, concerning the bridge, “Pato Guzman had given it its circular shape, central view screen, and two-level construction. Jefferies came up with the design of the work stations and control layouts” So, based on this, its likely PG was responsible for the location of the T/L alcove as well. And since MJ is on record as saying he never liked the split-level design of the set, this raises the question, what else did he not like about the design? Maybe MJ disagreed with PG on where the T/L alcove should go? You shouldn’t have a problem with this since you suggested as much just above?

I'm not operating on fan speculation, I'm operating on the producers' decision, that the bridge faces forward. Period, end of discussion on that end. It faced foward. Deal with it. Your examination of your AMT model, lo, these many years ago, was flawed and brought you to an erroneous conclusion.

How’s that blood pressure doing? I was referring to the nub not being the T/L housing and your insistence that the T/L alcove had never been moved on the set! These are just your fan speculations! Besides the bridge orientation is not the issue, since we’re all agreed that ideally it should face forward, it’s just a question of what extremes we’re willing to go to and how best to go about it? My examination of my AMT model kit was right on the money, the thing doesn’t match up, and whether or not the T/L alcove was ever moved, it still doesn’t mach up with the outside bridge dome, so somewhere along the line in the shows production, a mistake was made,period, end of discussion on that end. By the way, nice stab at derailing the discussion by trying making it personal, better luck next time.

As for what they'd say if asked? I wouldn't ask, as they're opinions are of no value to me...

The opinions of the people who actually made the show are of no value to you? Who the fuck died and made you king of all Star Trek?

There goes Your BP again! You didn’t quote the relevant part of my post, I said I felt that way because they thought of it (using your words) as a trivial matter and as such, never gave it the level of thought necessary to work out the details, like I said before, they’re not trying to make workable deck plans, so in this matter their spur of the moment pronouncements are of no use. Just because they worked on Star Trek doesn’t mean they’re assumptions are better than anybody else’s; I’m not into that kind of hero worship, they’re not kings of all Star Trek either. The only person whose opinion I would value on any of this is MJ’s, and even that I’d take with a grain of salt, after all, “He valued originality an wanted the fans to figure things out for themselves”! That’s all I’m doing here, what happened to your high regard for this, or does it apply only to you, and not to those who disagree with you? And by the way, I don’t appreciate your profanity or the tone it implies; I’ve been civil with you, so I expect the same in return!

I'd like to remind you that neither Rick Sternbach, Andrew Probert, nor Mike Okuda were working on Star Trek at this time. Nobody did those kinds of comparisons in those days (in fact, I think the first time anybody actually did an overlay of the exterior of the ship over the bridge set was when Rick did this for Voyager; that's right, not even TNG went into that level of detail).

Well, considering that a comparison of the models dome with that of the bridge set (so we’ve been told) is how MJ discovered the ship was going to need to be twice as big as previously assumed in the first place, is it too far fetched to believe that he might want to compare and adjust the height to width ratio of the dome to reflect the new scale? After all, we know other scale related details were added, like more windows (implying more decks) when the modifications were made for the production version?

Second of all, there's nothing nonsensical about it,
No bridge in the entire history of shipbuilding has ever faced anywhere but dead ahead. Pointing it off to port is therefore nonsensical.

How do you know that a ship of the future, especially a starship, won’t have some other arrangement? Then there’s that sub with its pilot console sideways. Besides ships have control rooms/bridges facing forward because they have windows, ST ships don’t have windows on the bridge (not counting the JJprise) hence, no need to face the bridge forward. And for that matter, no military ships I know of have the captain sitting with his back to an exposed entrance, so this screws both our points of view (no pun intended). All this falls under using excessive real world logic, we have to work with what we have, warts and all. In any case, as I’ve pointed out before, a rotated bridge is not the only solution to the bridge set/dome mismatch.

...and only the lateral shafts behind the bridge would need to go, and in any case the inertial dampeners don't have to be modified.

You do if you don't want your bridge crew to get space sick every time they go to warp and are pulled to the side instead of straight back. Good grief, have you even watched the damn show?

I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about “in universe” here, the gravity field alone would preclude this, and the inertial dampeners are probably an extension and augmentation of this, so its not a major issue, for me anyway.

The bridge is vulnerable either way, but it still gets lowered a bit this way, and there's just as much hull around as before, plus it’s now a smaller target which is probably the main consideration anyway!

By that logic, why not just put 'em in environmental suits and have the control panels out on the hull? They'd be impossible to hit and have an unobstructed view of their surroundings!

I meant lower target, but even so, this hardly deserves your Hyperbole.

As for your second option, you'd lose more than a few feet of shaft and the briefing room, you'd lose for all intents and purposes, all of deck two!

Have you seen Deck 2? There ain't much there in the first place.

Precisely my point!

Besides if we look at this from strictly a fictional point of view, then none of this would be designed the way it is in the first place!

Maybe, but we're not discussing how any of us would design the thing, we're discussing the thing as presented

Precisely my point, I wasn't talking about us, I was talking about a hypothetical scenario where everything was designed to be perfectly realistic and functional, it wouldn't look anything like we have it, so worrying too much about realism and functionality after the fact misses the point! Besides, repurposing the T/L housing as a subspace radio transceiver is not “the thing as presented”.

Which brings us to this gem...

Finally, you're overlooking a another alternative, which I prefer, and that is that what we see on TV is an imperfect dramatic production, where budget and time constraints forced capitulation to these realities and mistakes were made. But in the ideal situation of the fictional universe as conceived, these mistakes were not made, so the bridge faces forward because the T/L is behind the captain's chair and everything else matches up perfectly! So any deck plans ought to reflect this Ideal fictional ship, not its onscreen counterpart with all the associated inconsistencies!

Revisionist twaddle.

And as such, has absolutely no place in this discussion.

Well, if this isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is! Like your “subspace radio transceiver”, “Lateral T/L to the bridge” “shoving the entire bridge dome down to deck 2” etc. etc. is not revisionist twaddle? What you’re advocating is revisionism, what I’m talking about can be more properly termed “restoration”. You don’t have to agree with it, but you don’t need to be derisive and dismissive either, such attitudes are disrespectful, and as such, has absolutely no place in this discussion.