RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,901
Posts: 5,477,086
Members: 25,051
Currently online: 641
Newest member: GrammaticalFict

TrekToday headlines

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 15 2011, 07:12 PM   #31
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Drydocks

Timo wrote: View Post
Wanna bet the lights can change color at the press of a (carefully marked) button?
That's not what I mean. In naval useage, the whole point of a dry dock is that a vessel enters the dock, is then removed from the water, refurbished, then returned to the water. Submarine drydocks will actually float ABOVE the water and lift the vessel itself; the ship enters on one side and exits on the other, same case here. The lights are pretty much irrelevant to this since there's no analogy to a "drydock" if the dock just stays in orbit the whole time.

That said, Trek atmospheric vehicles have generally had a more or less aerodynamic appearance, with the blocky TOS shuttles being a borderline case beyond which few vehicles venture.
Only if they're designed to maneuver in an atmosphere. A descending dry dock will have killed its orbital velocity and descended straight down on antigravs and then straight up again. At a descent/ascent rate of about 30mph, it would take an entire day to lower the ship to its construction yards an entire day to lift it again.

Any way you slice it, that's gotta be less hazardous that letting the ship try to land/launch by itself.

Aahz wrote: View Post
This is the key point. The whole idea of the latticework design of the drydock was from the beginning to show a structure that was built in space, operates in space, and stays in space.
Unlike the Enterprise, the workbees, the orbital office building, and the Epsilon Nine space station?

Just sayin, we've got PLENTY of things in TMP that are designed to spend their entire operating lives in space. All of them look rather beefy and well put together. The dry dock is the only thing that ISN'T, and I don't think it's because it's a space-only structure.


Aahz wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Aahz wrote: View Post
One clue to this is the navigational lights on the drydock itself. The "starboard" side of the dock has green lights and the "port" side has red lights. On the entry end, the green lights are on the right and the red are on the left. On the exit end, the green lights are on the left and the red are on the right, which if you tried to enter the exit end would appear wrong -- you always keep the green on the right.
I missed the part where the aviation-style navigation lights has anything to do with the drydock operating in an atmosphere.
"AVIATION-style"? Try "NAVIGATION-style." Lights are applied to ships and docks (and buoys and bridges and etc.) so that they can be identified when the lights are all that can be seen. According to present rules (which can be extrapolated to apply to spacecraft of the future), the configurations of lights are specific, so that whatever carries the lights can be identified solely by the configuration of the lights from any point of view. Docks cannot have the same configuration of lights as any ship so that they can't be confused with a ship. However, docks have to be lit in such a way so that a ship trying to dock with it can recognize it as a dock and approach it from the correct direction at the correct angle.
Yeah, I got all that. What remains to be seen is how the presence of navigation lights in any way contradicts the dock's ability to descend to ground level.

If the dock were a moving vehicle (in other words, a ship), it would have to have a configuration of lights like a ship, not a dock. Ships do not have columns of red/green lights.
Aircraft carriers do.

But one thing ships have that docks don't is strobes. Notice that all the travel pods and work bees, and the Enterprise itself once it's under power, have strobes. The drydock doesn't.
Why would the strobes be active when the dock is holding a fixed orbit? Even Enterprise' strobes don't become active until she actually begins to maneuver.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2011, 07:29 PM   #32
AriesIV
Lieutenant
 
Location: Around here...
Re: Drydocks

POPCORN! GET SOME POPCORN RIGHT HERE...
AriesIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2011, 08:48 PM   #33
Aahz
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Drydocks

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
That's not what I mean. In naval useage, the whole point of a dry dock is that a vessel enters the dock, is then removed from the water, refurbished, then returned to the water. Submarine drydocks will actually float ABOVE the water and lift the vessel itself; the ship enters on one side and exits on the other, same case here. The lights are pretty much irrelevant to this since there's no analogy to a "drydock" if the dock just stays in orbit the whole time.
"Drydock" was meant to be a "throwback" term. After all, none of the ships are in water that they need to be removed from. Removal from the water was to facilitate access to the underwater portion of the hull. Ships in orbit don't need to be removed from anything in order to facilitate access to their hulls. Nor do they need to be "removed" from space into the atmosphere for service -- that's why they have all the various pieces of equipment up there -- the drydock itself, workbees, inspection/travel pods, even EVA suits with their various add-on components for servicing ships in space.

Any way you slice it, that's gotta be less hazardous that letting the ship try to land/launch by itself.
Except that, once again, the drydock structure was designed solely for operation in a microgravity environment, as are most of the ships, Enterprise included.

Unlike the Enterprise, the workbees, the orbital office building, and the Epsilon Nine space station?
Funny you should mention Epsilon Nine -- the majority of its structure is latticework as well -- another space-only structure, like the drydock. The orbital office complex was also designed for space-only operation, but since its function is vastly different, so is its appearance. Even so, portions of its structure were designed (also by Probert) to have a "space-only" appearance.

As for the other ships, designers of ships often like to have form in addition to function. The Enterprise is a beautiful ship, and was designed for beauty as well as performance. And I mean performance -- high warp speed would require a beefy structure, no matter how good your integrity-field technology is. Drydock isn't going anywhere, so it doesn't need to be beefy ... or beautiful.

If the dock were a moving vehicle (in other words, a ship), it would have to have a configuration of lights like a ship, not a dock. Ships do not have columns of red/green lights.
Aircraft carriers do.
*ahem* Those aren't navigation lights -- those are landing lights used so pilots landing on the carrier can see the orientation of the deck in relation to their orientation. They wanna land level on the deck, don'cha know...

And interesting that you would bring up a carrier in this discussion. Aircraft approach the carrier such that the carrier's green nav light is on the right and the red nav light is on the left. Any other orientation and they're approaching the carrier incorrectly.

Why would the strobes be active when the dock is holding a fixed orbit? Even Enterprise' strobes don't become active until she actually begins to maneuver.
It's holding a fixed orbit because its SUPPOSED to hold a fixed orbit; therefore, it doesn't have strobes. You can speculate all you want, but according to the designer, Andrew Probert, it is a structure that is supposed to stay in one location in space, not go up and down to and from the Earth's surface.
Aahz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2011, 08:56 PM   #34
Aahz
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Drydocks

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Enterprise was built in the San Francisco fleet yards, according to its dedication plaque; it had to get from San Francisco to orbit SOMEHOW.
Starfleet's San Francisco Fleet Yards are in geostationary orbit over San Francisco. According to the Star Trek Writer's Guide for the original series, the Enterprise's components were assembled in space.

The New Enterprise was built in the Riverside Shipyards in Iowa; same issue. It either entered orbit under its own power or it was lifted into orbit by specialized equipment.
JJ Trek is crap. They didn't think through a single thing like Roddenberry would have. But regardless, we're discussing non-reboot drydock technologies ... or at least I am, anyway...
Aahz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2011, 09:29 PM   #35
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Drydocks

Aahz wrote: View Post
Any way you slice it, that's gotta be less hazardous that letting the ship try to land/launch by itself.
Except that, once again, the drydock structure was designed solely for operation in a microgravity environment, as are most of the ships, Enterprise included.
But Enterprise was built on the ground, no matter where it was DESIGNED to operate.

Funny you should mention Epsilon Nine -- the majority of its structure is latticework as well
Actually the majority of its structure is communications arrays and deep space antennas. Not unlike the Argus Array that appears in TNG, only alot shinier and busier looking.

As for the other ships, designers of ships often like to have form in addition to function. The Enterprise is a beautiful ship, and was designed for beauty as well as performance. And I mean performance -- high warp speed would require a beefy structure, no matter how good your integrity-field technology is. Drydock isn't going anywhere, so it doesn't need to be beefy ... or beautiful.
Which doesn't change the overall point that there's no reason to intentionally set out to design "a structure that only functions in space" since, by definition, EVERYTHING WE'VE EVER SEEN in Star Trek fits that description. The only things that don't are shuttlecraft, which look no more suited to atmospheric flight than the space dock.

*ahem* Those aren't navigation lights -- those are landing lights used so pilots landing on the carrier can see the orientation of the deck in relation to their orientation.
Indeed. And the lights you described on the space dock evidently serve the same purpose to aid in the docking of starships.

And interesting that you would bring up a carrier in this discussion. Aircraft approach the carrier such that the carrier's green nav light is on the right and the red nav light is on the left. Any other orientation and they're approaching the carrier incorrectly.
And yet, aircraft carriers are mobile vessels that do not have strobes or running lights like aircraft do.

It's holding a fixed orbit because its SUPPOSED to hold a fixed orbit; therefore, it doesn't have strobes.
Again, neither does the Enterprise when it's docked.

Aahz wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Enterprise was built in the San Francisco fleet yards, according to its dedication plaque; it had to get from San Francisco to orbit SOMEHOW.
Starfleet's San Francisco Fleet Yards are in geostationary orbit over San Francisco.
Unless Earth's orbital inclination has changed considerably, no it isn't. Geostationary orbits are, BY DEFINITION, equatorial orbits, and San Francisco isn't on the equator.

The New Enterprise was built in the Riverside Shipyards in Iowa; same issue. It either entered orbit under its own power or it was lifted into orbit by specialized equipment.
JJ Trek is crap.
Either way it's still canon. More importantly, it pre-dates TMP by almost 20 years.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2011, 10:11 PM   #36
Cicero
Admiral
 
Cicero's Avatar
 
Location: The City of Destiny
Re: Drydocks

Aahz wrote: View Post
Reference the photos I linked to earlier. The drydock has columns of red lights on the port side and green lights on the starboard side, and white lights along the top, bottom, and sides. The correct entry orientation would be to have the column of red lights on your left (port), the column of green lights on your right (starboard), and a row of white lights only at the top and not across the bottom or in the center. If you see any other configuration, then you're approaching the dock from the wrong direction/angle.
The correct light orientation when entering is actually the opposite of that - hence the mnemonic "Red Right Returning." Right lights are kept to starboard when entering a port or drydock; green lights are kept to starboard when exiting.

If the dock were a moving vehicle (in other words, a ship), it would have to have a configuration of lights like a ship, not a dock. Ships do not have columns of red/green lights. But one thing ships have that docks don't is strobes. Notice that all the travel pods and work bees, and the Enterprise itself once it's under power, have strobes. The dry dock doesn't. Dry dock isn't meant to be a moving vehicle -- it is a (relatively) stationary structure.
That's not entirely true. Floating dry docks (AFDs in U.S. Navy classification) are ships that are capable of partial flooding to embark ships for remote dry dock repairs. They also have columns of red and green navigational lights, like those used on the TMP dry dock. In this photo, the navigational lights can be seen at the upper corners, behind the rows of decorative and working lights.
__________________
Ad majorem futuri gloriam.
Cicero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2011, 10:34 PM   #37
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Drydocks

there's no analogy to a "drydock" if the dock just stays in orbit the whole time.
Let's remember here that "drydock" is a fan designation for the facility, not something we could observe being used by Starfleet either in dialogue or in onscreen writing.

For all we know, the facilities shown in ST:TMP, ST2, ST:GEN and VOY "Relativity" are officially designated "wetdocks" exactly because they expose the ship to the water-analogue of starship operations...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15 2011, 11:00 PM   #38
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: Drydocks

^ Perhaps not. If the latticework of the TMP dock utilizes forcefields to screen out micrometeoroids and harmful solar and/or cosmic radiation, it would be providing a controlled environment for shipbuilding/refit operations. This would put the "dry" in the dock.
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.

Last edited by Wingsley; February 16 2011 at 02:02 AM. Reason: typo correction
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 12:13 AM   #39
Aahz
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Drydocks

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
But Enterprise was built on the ground, no matter where it was DESIGNED to operate.
No, as I already indicated in my earlier post, Enterprise was built in space. This was established long ago by Gene Roddenberry himself. You can argue the point all you want, but you can't change what's already been determined by the Great Bird.

Which doesn't change the overall point that there's no reason to intentionally set out to design "a structure that only functions in space" since, by definition, EVERYTHING WE'VE EVER SEEN in Star Trek fits that description.
True that, yet nevertheless the drydock was designed specifically for that look, and the function of the drydock was specifically to be a space-only construction/repair facility. Again, no amount of arguing will change that.

*ahem* Those aren't navigation lights -- those are landing lights used so pilots landing on the carrier can see the orientation of the deck in relation to their orientation.
Indeed. And the lights you described on the space dock evidently serve the same purpose to aid in the docking of starships.
Hardly. It's one thing entirely to bring a ship into a dock at a slow speed, needing only left/right orientation and angle (and up/down in the case of spaceships), but its another thing entirely to land a plane on a carrier deck at full speed, needing precision flightpath and roll angle information.

Unless Earth's orbital inclination has changed considerably, no it isn't. Geostationary orbits are, BY DEFINITION, equatorial orbits, and San Francisco isn't on the equator.
Also true, but I didn't make that up, and you're not the first to point out the technical discrepancy. However, the fan community has more-or-less determined that the San Francisco Fleet Yards are in geostationary orbit at the same longitude as San Francisco. Regardless, the Fleet Yards are in space, and Enterprise was assembled there, JJ Trek notwithstanding.
Aahz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 12:22 AM   #40
Search4
Commander
 
Search4's Avatar
 
Location: New Jersey, USA
Re: Drydocks

Timo wrote: View Post
there's no analogy to a "drydock" if the dock just stays in orbit the whole time.
Let's remember here that "drydock" is a fan designation for the facility, not something we could observe being used by Starfleet either in dialogue or in onscreen writing.

For all we know, the facilities shown in ST:TMP, ST2, ST:GEN and VOY "Relativity" are officially designated "wetdocks" exactly because they expose the ship to the water-analogue of starship operations...

Timo Saloniemi

I do official declare it the DRY, not the WET dock.

Ownership hath its privileges!

Search4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 12:29 AM   #41
AriesIV
Lieutenant
 
Location: Around here...
Re: Drydocks

Aahz wrote: View Post
No, as I already indicated in my earlier post, Enterprise was built in space. This was established long ago by Gene Roddenberry himself. You can argue the point all you want, but you can't change what's already been determined by the Great Bird.


It's this kind of slave-ish devotion to bullshit details and "canon" that really really diminish the enjoyability of interacting with Fandom.


It's especially interesting when I get someone who behaves this way and then launches into an anti-religion spew. It's funny that the slave-ish devotion to bullshit details and "canon" is the biggest single thing that these people rant against.... yet they can't step back from the altar of Trek and see themselves...

Wow.

Ok.

So you've made up your mind based on utter mindless devotion to a detail from 25-30 years ago uttered by someone who's influence on the show has been vastly diluted.

In other words you're not here to learn other possible ways to interpolate this structure nor do you CARE about other possible ways or the fact that people are taking time to present these ideas.

No you are here to CONVERT us to the HOLY CHURCH OF CANON as seen by Aahz.

Ok carry on. I'll have some missionaries from my church stop by and tell you why your life is wrong and why you need to subscribe to our way of life OR ELSE.

Wait! You say that's WRONG and very irritating having to argue logic with a moron? *quickly holds up a mirror*



I trust you understand I am not attacking you as a person just your illogical thought process.
AriesIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 12:30 AM   #42
Aahz
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Drydocks

Cicero wrote: View Post
The correct light orientation when entering is actually the opposite of that - hence the mnemonic "Red Right Returning." Right lights are kept to starboard when entering a port or drydock; green lights are kept to starboard when exiting.
To my knowledge (which is admittedly somewhat weak in this area), this protocol and the mnemonic are for channel lights. Ships travel both directions through a channel, but the lights are the same color all directions, necessitating the change in orientation. Leaving from inland areas and heading to open water, green lights are kept to the right. Coming from open water and heading inland, red lights are kept to the right, prompting the mnemonic.

Since docks themselves don't handle two-way traffic, they would need only one orientation. Now, whether a dock slip has green on the right or on the left is the remaining question. I searched for photos of dock/port/pier/terminal lights at night, but I couldn't find any. Nor could I find any rules or regulations on such lights at the Coast Guard site (but maybe I was looking in the wrong place). If someone knows of such a photo or video, please post it here.

If the dock were a moving vehicle (in other words, a ship), it would have to have a configuration of lights like a ship, not a dock. Ships do not have columns of red/green lights. But one thing ships have that docks don't is strobes. Notice that all the travel pods and work bees, and the Enterprise itself once it's under power, have strobes. The dry dock doesn't. Dry dock isn't meant to be a moving vehicle -- it is a (relatively) stationary structure.
That's not entirely true. Floating dry docks (AFDs in U.S. Navy classification) are ships that are capable of partial flooding to embark ships for remote dry dock repairs. They also have columns of red and green navigational lights, like those used on the TMP dry dock. In this photo, the navigational lights can be seen at the upper corners, behind the rows of decorative and working lights.
That's very interesting -- I was unaware of AFDs. Also very interesting is the fact that the nav lights on the upper corners appear red on the right and green on the left in the photo, although the submarine is facing toward the camera. The gangway is also on the submarine's port side. This is the same orientation as the Enterprise in drydock in the photo -- the port side of the ship is on the same side as the red lights.
Aahz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 02:11 AM   #43
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: Drydocks

AriesIV wrote: View Post
Aahz wrote: View Post
No, as I already indicated in my earlier post, Enterprise was built in space. This was established long ago by Gene Roddenberry himself. You can argue the point all you want, but you can't change what's already been determined by the Great Bird.


It's this kind of slave-ish devotion to bullshit details and "canon" that really really diminish the enjoyability of interacting with Fandom.


It's especially interesting when I get someone who behaves this way and then launches into an anti-religion spew. It's funny that the slave-ish devotion to bullshit details and "canon" is the biggest single thing that these people rant against.... yet they can't step back from the altar of Trek and see themselves...

Wow.

Ok.

So you've made up your mind based on utter mindless devotion to a detail from 25-30 years ago uttered by someone who's influence on the show has been vastly diluted.

In other words you're not here to learn other possible ways to interpolate this structure nor do you CARE about other possible ways or the fact that people are taking time to present these ideas.

No you are here to CONVERT us to the HOLY CHURCH OF CANON as seen by Aahz.

Ok carry on. I'll have some missionaries from my church stop by and tell you why your life is wrong and why you need to subscribe to our way of life OR ELSE.

Wait! You say that's WRONG and very irritating having to argue logic with a moron? *quickly holds up a mirror*



I trust you understand I am not attacking you as a person just your illogical thought process.


Well, at the risk of stepping into the crossfire here, let me point out that when I made the O.P. for this thread, it should have been pretty clear that this was a discussion of details and conjecture on those details. If this isn't your cup of tea, that's okay. But I do not understand why you want to "attack" someone else's "illogical thought process" in a thread you apparently have no use for.
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 02:13 AM   #44
AriesIV
Lieutenant
 
Location: Around here...
Re: Drydocks

I'm more frustrated with the "well X person who worked on the show said Y and therefore it can't ever be changed" than the speculation part. The rest of the discussion is fascinating and I've learned quite a bit about drydock operation.
AriesIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2011, 02:50 AM   #45
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: Drydocks

Actually, I would assert that an central part of this thread would be Probert and Roddenberry's take on making the original drydock for TMP. While the concept appears to have evolved since then (the 2009 Abrams movie not withstanding), the original concept itself is one of the things I was asking about in the O.P.

I agree that this is a fascinating discussion. What surprises me is how multi-faceted it has become. There are actually several sub-discussions going on here. It's like one topic has evolved into several.
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.