Hobbyist Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
461 - 478 of 478 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
You could just lower the bridge enough into the B deck that it fits facing forward.

If one's creating their own model, it would totally be up to them.

I've heard the viewscreen argument before, to me it still doesn't answer the question as to why the bridge would be offset.

Plus there are problems with the viewscreen arguments, the fact that it doesn't answer the question why aside.

It assumes that there are never volatile flight conditions or problems with inertia.

There are many possible conditions in atmosphere flight or flight near an object with an extremely strong gravitational pull; or actually any situation in which turbulence was applied to the ship - that would disorient a "side-saddle" riding helmsman more then a bridge that was centered.

A disoriented helmsman could quickly become an issue.

We've already seen several examples where, inertial dampers aside, the ship is still shown to experience the very real forces of inertia as the bridge rocks and rolls back and forth. During turbulent conditions, it would take far less inertia then that to cause a much more confusing, disorienting effect on a helmsman trying to pilot the ship forward while he was being rocked in a manner that doesn't match the direction the bridge is facing.

But again, if one's creating their own model, it would totally be up to them.

I forget whose it was, but I saw one design that had the bridge lowered and centered, the turboshaft elevator came out of the tube and slid to the side a few feet when it reached the level of the bridge, and the turboshaft was actually forward a bit on the interior, with access to an emergency ladder at the aft part of what's now considered to be the exterior tube.

I thought that was a neat design. I don't know how one got access to the emergency ladder, or even if it was noted in the design, but it solved a ton of different issues all at once.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,793 Posts
How's this for an explanation?

It has since been established (if not on-screen, then in supplementary material) that the bridge is a modular unit that can easily be swapped out depending on the mission. This not only explains what the bridge is at the top of the ship (rather than a more protected location near the center) but also why the same class of ship often had radically different bridges. (Or in the case of the later movies, why even the same ship had different bridges.)

The early Constitution class ships were built with the turbo shaft on the center line of the ship. Soon after the Enterprise was constructed, for some reason the design was changed so the shaft was moved to the left. During one of the Enterprise's upgrades (probably when Pike took over from Captain April) the new, updated Bridge unit was installed. They were faced with the choice of either completely replacing the the turboshaft or rotating the bridge counterclockwise. They chose the more practical and cost-effective option.

As for the real-world, practical reason for the off center doors, I think it is an obvious dramatic neccessity. Whenever someone walks onto the bridge, you are going to have the Captain turn to look at them. It's better if he can simply look over his left shoulder, rather than twist completely around. This is also probably why they moved Spock's station between THE MOTION PICTURE and THE WRATH OF KAHN.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
If they (Starfleet) were so concerned with "intertial forces", they would have had crew seats which were not only attached firmly to the deck, they would also have featured restraint harnesses! Clearly the fleet architects did not consider inertial forces a concern, in any flight regime.

So there.

Hee hee!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
X15-A2 said:
If they (Starfleet) were so concerned with "intertial forces", they would have had crew seats which were not only attached firmly to the deck, they would also have featured restraint harnesses! Clearly the fleet architects did not consider inertial forces a concern, in any flight regime.

So there.

Hee hee!
Ya got me there! :lol:



One of my favorite moments during the Enterprise series was when Trip had secretly been working on a replacement captain's chair which had, of all things - a seatbelt!

They decided it was a bad idea, which suggested to me they had made a pivotal decision in Starfleet engineering.

Apparently one that would take centuries to overcome. It's such a complicated device, the seatbelt. :lol:

Maybe the Enterprise J has both seatbelts and fuses.

That would be a real leap forward! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
902 Posts
To be offset or not to be. My thoughts:

Maybe a reason to be offset is that is is more aesthetically pleasing than a symetrical mirror image layout? That would look rather boring. From the crews perspective, once they walk onto the bridge you are seeing it from an angle anyway. But your mind would immediately lock on and reference the viewscreen as the "front of the bridge" and would have no idea where true north (front of the ship) was in effect.

Like I've said think what you want it to be for yourself. This subject gets people so passionate either way that I really think its more a psychological issue than a practical design issue.

The crew falling out of their chairs or rocking back and forth during an attack is a bad excuse. If anything that was for dramatic effect only and sort of stupid for reasons above like the chairs not being bolted down and having no seatbelts for example. If anything, there should have just been heavy vibration or turbulence but that wouldn't have looked as dramatic for the actors to merely shake in their seats. Plus most effects of inertia and external gravity are negated by 23rd century starship technology anyway. If not they would be either crushed are floating about.

To me a command bridge just has to be functional to operate the ship. Its about functionality, not which way your control instruments face in orientation to the ships centerline. Heck, most bridge personnel sit cockeyed relative to each other no matter which way the bridge actually points!

Unless they have actual windows to give them an exterior point of reference, the bridge doesn't have to point straight ahead at all. Instead on the bridge they use digital viewscreens as their sole point of reference to the outside universe. I think having an offset bridge (without windows to disorient and confuse the crew) is a clever and bold thing to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
^ I can't remember who it was, but someone involved in the production was said to have been asked whey they didn't have seatbelts to which he replied "then people wouldn't fall out of them" or somesuch. I really liked that they had the equivalent of seatbelts in ST:TMP. Too bad they forgot to use them in the subsequent films. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
uss_columbia said:
^ I can't remember who it was, but someone involved in the production was said to have been asked whey they didn't have seatbelts to which he replied "then people wouldn't fall out of them" or somesuch. I really liked that they had the equivalent of seatbelts in ST:TMP. Too bad they forgot to use them in the subsequent films. :)
On the 25th + 1 day anniversary of TWOK, I must point out that Saavik used hers in the Kobayashi Maru. One of those "kinda makes sense" ideas like the radiation suits in engineering. (The shield in the transporter room was a bit much.)

I have yet to see anyone present me with a plausible forward facing TOS bridge. But then it would be the only bridge angled sideways as such in all the Trek history. *sigh*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
I have to agree about the shield in the transporter. Odd that the orbital station trasporter didn't need one. Maybe it was more for decontamination / containment. The Enterprise would expect to beam strange things from strange places, whereas the orbital facility only beams "clean" people from Earth facilities.

Perhaps Saavik using hers is why she's the only one on the bridge that wasn't killed. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
902 Posts
Wasn't every non-Enterprise starship depicted in TOS shown also with an angled bridge? I'm thinking the M7 computer war games episode ánd others. Of course they reused the same bridge set but still.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
I don't think we saw closeups of the outside of the bridge areas of the other ships in the fleet in Ultimate Computer. Maybe some of those ships wore their lift tubes 35.5 degrees onto the port side. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
wpthomas said:
On the 25th + 1 day anniversary of TWOK, I must point out that Saavik used hers in the Kobayashi Maru. One of those "kinda makes sense" ideas like the radiation suits in engineering. (The shield in the transporter room was a bit much.)

I have yet to see anyone present me with a plausible forward facing TOS bridge. But then it would be the only bridge angled sideways as such in all the Trek history. *sigh*
I realize that things such as inertial dampers, etc, can be used to try and explain away the bridge not facing the centerline.

However I would argue that even the best of technologies can be either expected to fail or not work perfectly some of the time.

Given that probably, why do it?

Also, even if one could argue that there would be technology to make them feel none of the effects of being "off-balance" with the centerline of the ship.

Let's assume that is 100% possible and it would work at all times in all situations. Still it doesn't answer the question why do it?

To me the most likely answer is that something forced them to have to define the bridge as sitting sideways at some point due to production demands.

That makes more sense to me then they just decided to do it just to do it.

But unfortunately we'll never know for sure. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Chuck_P.R. said:
I realize that things such as inertial dampers, etc, can be used to try and explain away the bridge not facing the centerline.

...

To me the most likely answer is that something forced them to have to define the bridge as sitting sideways at some point due to production demands.
I think when they screwed the new bridge on between The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before they didn't get the threads lined up right and the bridge was off center by the time they got it tightened down.

---------------
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Steve Mavronis said:
The crew falling out of their chairs or rocking back and forth during an attack is a bad excuse. If anything that was for dramatic effect only and sort of stupid for reasons above like the chairs not being bolted down and having no seatbelts for example. If anything, there should have just been heavy vibration or turbulence but that wouldn't have looked as dramatic for the actors to merely shake in their seats. Plus most effects of inertia and external gravity are negated by 23rd century starship technology anyway. If not they would be either crushed are floating about.
Not really.

While they might have been a little melodramatic with the tiltling and the non-bolted down and non-seatbelted chairs, it's not unreasonable for a ship to rock suddenly when say, struck by a couple of photo torpedoes or other such weapon.


Let's not forget they have gravity, artificially created or not.

You can't have gravity and not have inertia, 23rd century or not.

I agree the directors may have gone over the top by not using bolted chairs and belts etc...

Plus it would have been good if someone had caught the scene where Uhura falls in a totally different direction then everybody else. :lol:

But I wouldn't think it's fair to totally dismiss everything seen onscreen that indicates they could still feel the effects of inertia.

Inertial dampeners, as they called them, I'm sure they had. But there is a reason they called them dampeners and not eliminators.

Can't have gravity and no inertia.

Plus we saw plenty of evidence of the inertia onscreen. Even if a good deal of it was a bit melodramatic. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
902 Posts
Why not do it? Some ask why. I ask why not.

All I'm saying is the elevator is the answer. It is most efficient to descend in the straight line to the lower decks of the primary hull without zig-zagging back and forth along the way, unless it has to travel around a deck for a long enough distance to make it worthwhile to get to the other side of the ship. So it is also logical that it be on the centerline under the external nub that MJ put there for it. The rest must fall into place from there. We can't escape that it is off center relative to the viewscreen. But there is no front window to confront or make everything line up around it. Plus the chairs all swivel. If it was so important to remain facing forward or get whiplash, they wouldn't even have swivel chairs! Since that doesn't concern them (unless the director yells "lean left - tumble right") it isn't a big deal if the bridge is also offset in its design. It still looks cool.

What does it hurt to be that way? After all it is still functional enough for them. Nothing hurts really, other than symbolic denial that the Earth isn't flat and curves away from us.

As far as their technology potentially failing at times, they forgot the basics to keep chairs from tipping over! Even if they were bolted down they aren't designed for the stresses encountered in such situations. Obviously they are masters over natural forces such as laws of motion, inertia, and acceleration.

[edit] Just reading the above post about gravity and inertia after I wrote this. They have artificial gravity. I think that technology could also be applied to more than just the down direction to correct for sideways momemtum. Hard to be a physics professor about it since a lot of the stuff in Trek is imaginative sci fi. We can talk about warp drive, folding space to affect the time needed to travel across the galaxy but none of us can create warp drive technology for real in the 21st century - at least not for a little while yet in the Star Trek timeline. Now how about a nice game of Fizzbin? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
scotthm said:
I think when they screwed the new bridge on between The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before they didn't get the threads lined up right and the bridge was off center by the time they got it tightened down.
:lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
Chuck_P.R. said:
You can't have gravity and not have inertia, 23rd century or not.
...
Can't have gravity and no inertia.
Umm, you don't need gravity to have inertia. In any case, I don't see how the orientation of the bridge is important relative to inertia. The accelerations can come from any direction "when say, struck by a couple of photo torpedoes or other such weapon." And as was pointed out before, it's only three people on the bridge that face the viewscreen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
uss_columbia said:
Umm, you don't need gravity to have inertia. In any case, I don't see how the orientation of the bridge is important relative to inertia. The accelerations can come from any direction "when say, struck by a couple of photo torpedoes or other such weapon." And as was pointed out before, it's only three people on the bridge that face the viewscreen.
"Umm..." I'm glad all the points you have made mine finally agree with all the points I was making. :)

We seem to be in full agreement.

No you don't need gravity to have inertia. But that statement has nothing to do with, nor changes the fact that if you have gravity on the ship(which they do) you do have inertia.

That's why they have inertial dampeners.

In some situations the acceleration will come from one direction, sometimes from multiple directions, but the ship's inertial dampers and correction systems will still have one simple objective:

to right the ship, move it back to the proper postion for the traveling instructions it is being given by the helmsman.

And yes, three people do indeed face the viewscreen.
You are 100% correct about that.

One of them is the helmsman.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,335 Posts
OK, this horse is dead and beaten. It's also getting to the point where people are arguing over the definition of the word "is". As such, it's locked.
 
461 - 478 of 478 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top