Where was Kirk's Enterprise built?

[Timo]

Could she have been built in San Francisco? Yes, and that wouldn't necessarily preclude her being made operational somewhere else.

...Especially in the context of Prelude to Axanar, where putting the final touches on the Constitutions is done at a specific location as a strategic ruse. Few organizations in history would have built their war machines at the vulnerable front lines if they had a choice, certain siege engines perhaps notwithstanding. Starfleet here would probably have a choice: if Axanar suddenly became vulnerable, the construction yards or at least the half-built ships could be towed elsewhere. But Garth decides they should not, and the fate of the Klingons is sealed...

Unless you're in geosyncronous orbit, you don't ORBIT above a specific spot.

In today's terms, you can indeed orbit above a specific point, or fly a figure-eight, or a figure that spells "I don't brake for Newton". Orbiting is a term commonly used for flying an aircraft in a repeating pattern, for purposes of waiting (as few aircraft can hold still while waiting) or for maintaining steady contact with a surface feature such as communications asset or weapons target.

Would a starship construction facility wish to fly figure-eights above San Francisco? Well, it probably would. After all, transporters are line-of-sight devices with little or no ground-penetrating capacity, so surface-to-orbit logistics would be insufferably interrupted by freefall-style orbiting, or then need to be routed through a global emitter network. And the latter might not be treknologically or economically viable.

Could a dockyard fly figure-eights above San Francisco? I don't see why not. Starship impulse engines seldom fail. And when they do, starships fall from the skies, as if the engines had been the thing holding them up, and not Newtonian freefall mechanics. And if impulse engines are too unreliable to float your dock, you can go for antigravity, which never fails.

Is there a particular reason it couldn't fly in a planet's atmosphere?

With as much propulsive oomph as a starship obviously possesses, I don't see how any "reason" would have a snowball's chance on Vulcan of hindering flight. Aerodynamic shape non-optimal? Irrelevant - the engines can push anything through air at any speed up to maximum warp. Sonic effects a problem? They would be at any shape or size or indeed speed, for something that big - but shield tech might reroute air to alleviate the effect, or then the neighbors just have to grin and bear it. Friction effects threatening to melt you down? ROTFL - these ships can shrug off disruptor beams or the heat of stars.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[GregroxMun]

Personally, I thought the ship was built IN ORBIT above San Francisco, but have no idea where that came from either.

Help?

Unless you're in geosyncronous orbit, you don't ORBIT above a specific spot. At any rate, for the purposes of practicality, NCC-1701 was probably built at Starbase 1 or some low-earth-orbit spacedock, probably in an equatorial or San-Fransisco-Latitude orbit.

In the new movies, it seems that the Enterprise was being built on the ground at San Fransisco, and the Enterprise in those movies does seem to be able to, despite all reason, fly inside the atmosphere.

It was built in Iowa at the Riverside Shipyards.

Is there a particular reason it couldn't fly in a planet's atmosphere?

It does alright in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday". Any problems were from the time travel, not the ship's capabilities.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNeMNXQBzd8[/yt]

But in the much more reasonable original series, I would imagine the Enterprise was built in orbit around the Earth, and that it can not fly very well in planetary atmospheres.

In a society that has control over gravity, there's no reason it couldn't be built or partially built on the ground and then lifted into space via anti-grav technology. There might even be pluses in the form of safety and freedom of movement by building on the ground.

I forgot about Tomorrow Is Yesterday. So the ship can fly in the atmosphere fine. So it was probably built on the ground and launched from there, perhaps with the help of some boosters to get it off the ground and into the upper atmosphere.

But if you look at the structure of the Enterprise, it doesn't at all look like it was designed to be launched from Earth, not in one piece anyway. I think the most likely explanation is a combination. The ship is built on the ground, but the Saucer, Engineering Section, Struts/Neck, and Nacelles were all launched separately and assembled there.

 

[GregroxMun]

Could a dockyard fly figure-eights above San Francisco? I don't see why not. Starship impulse engines seldom fail. And when they do, starships fall from the skies, as if the engines had been the thing holding them up, and not Newtonian freefall mechanics. And if impulse engines are too unreliable to float your dock, you can go for antigravity, which never fails.

In order for me not to completely disregard the entirety of reason of starship operation in Star Trek, and because I play too much Kerbal Space Program, I HAVE to assume ships in orbit are in freefall. Anything else would be stupid.

If there was ever a power failure on a starbase holding station at low altitude over a location (Or any altitude below geosynchronous), it would fall straight down. That wouldn't be fun for San Francisco or the inhabitants of the station.

 

[Albertese]

^^^
I agree.

Also, you can have geosynchronous orbit "over" San Francisco in the same way that the United States has geosynchronous satellites today: orbit them over the equator and point your dish south. Doesn't have to be straight up, just have a constant LOS.

--Alex

 

[Nerys Myk]

Unless you're in geosyncronous orbit, you don't ORBIT above a specific spot. At any rate, for the purposes of practicality, NCC-1701 was probably built at Starbase 1 or some low-earth-orbit spacedock, probably in an equatorial or San-Fransisco-Latitude orbit.

In the new movies, it seems that the Enterprise was being built on the ground at San Fransisco, and the Enterprise in those movies does seem to be able to, despite all reason, fly inside the atmosphere.

It was built in Iowa at the Riverside Shipyards.

Is there a particular reason it couldn't fly in a planet's atmosphere?

It does alright in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday". Any problems were from the time travel, not the ship's capabilities.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNeMNXQBzd8[/yt]

But in the much more reasonable original series, I would imagine the Enterprise was built in orbit around the Earth, and that it can not fly very well in planetary atmospheres.

In a society that has control over gravity, there's no reason it couldn't be built or partially built on the ground and then lifted into space via anti-grav technology. There might even be pluses in the form of safety and freedom of movement by building on the ground.

I forgot about Tomorrow Is Yesterday. So the ship can fly in the atmosphere fine. So it was probably built on the ground and launched from there, perhaps with the help of some boosters to get it off the ground and into the upper atmosphere

With the gravity control tech they have, I don't think boosters would be needed.

But if you look at the structure of the Enterprise, it doesn't at all look like it was designed to be launched from Earth, not in one piece anyway. I think the most likely explanation is a combination. The ship is built on the ground, but the Saucer, Engineering Section, Struts/Neck, and Nacelles were all launched separately and assembled there.

My theory is shields can be configured for atmospheric flight giving the ship an aerodynamic "shape".

A related question. I have to wonder how "air worthy" were the TOS shuttlecraft? The shape tells me no. But I'm no aeronautical engineer,so I've no real knowledge to back that up.

 

[Albertese]

The TOS shuttlecraft reminds me of Douglas Adams description of the ships in the Vogon Constructor Fleet from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: They "hung in the air in exactly the way bricks don't."

--Alex

 

[Timo]

If there was ever a power failure on a starbase holding station at low altitude over a location (Or any altitude below geosynchronous), it would fall straight down.

Well, not straight down, for various reasons, but yes.

And this is exactly what happens when a starship loses power, the most notoriously in "Court Martial". Apparently, the many downsides of freefalling prompt Starfleet to use powered hovering instead. And several of those downsides would apply to space stations, too, not just to starships. Many "orbiting" installations are up there to do a job, not just to float aimlessly, and need propulsion in any case to accomplish their jobs. Using that propulsion to also hover would be a logical step.

On screen, there's no real evidence one way or another, as we don't really see space stations either stay over one place or move over several. All we know for sure is that DS9/Terok Nor did have propulsive abilities, and that it was involved in massive surface-to-orbit logistics (it refined ore) that might have required optimizing its position above Bajor.

Well, that, and "Remember Me" where an "orbiting" starbase supposedly stays so still that our heroes can "return to the exact spot" to repeat a weird experiment that has trapped Dr. Crusher.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[GregroxMun]

A related question. I have to wonder how "air worthy" were the TOS shuttlecraft? The shape tells me no. But I'm no aeronautical engineer,so I've no real knowledge to back that up.

It is certainly more aerodynamic than the Enterprise. The bottom of it could potentially be used as a lifting body for limited glide, similar to the Apollo command modules. I believe there are small landing thruster/takeoff thrusters on the Shuttle, either impulse technology or hypergolics.

 

[GregroxMun]

If there was ever a power failure on a starbase holding station at low altitude over a location (Or any altitude below geosynchronous), it would fall straight down.

Well, not straight down, for various reasons, but yes.

And this is exactly what happens when a starship loses power, the most notoriously in "Court Martial". Apparently, the many downsides of freefalling prompt Starfleet to use powered hovering instead. And several of those downsides would apply to space stations, too, not just to starships. Many "orbiting" installations are up there to do a job, not just to float aimlessly, and need propulsion in any case to accomplish their jobs. Using that propulsion to also hover would be a logical step.

On screen, there's no real evidence one way or another, as we don't really see space stations either stay over one place or move over several. All we know for sure is that DS9/Terok Nor did have propulsive abilities, and that it was involved in massive surface-to-orbit logistics (it refined ore) that might have required optimizing its position above Bajor.

Well, that, and "Remember Me" where an "orbiting" starbase supposedly stays so still that our heroes can "return to the exact spot" to repeat a weird experiment that has trapped Dr. Crusher.

Timo Saloniemi

Terok Nor is a Cardassian Station from quite a few decades after The Original Series. It probably would have More advanced tech anyway.

The Kerbals aren't giving this one up!

 

[Timo]

I doubt there really are major differences in technology level between these "regular" alien cultures - if there were (and if technology really evolved significantly in a timescale of mere centuries), then these neighbors wouldn't merely quarrel with each other, but would quickly establish a hierarchy where the more advanced culture subjugated the less advanced one.

Technology near Earth in the third millennium seems to have more or less plateaued: everything we see in TNG was already there in TOS and in ENT. Starships have been capable of effortless atmospheric flight from the days of ENT already, so them being capable of it in TOS or the new "alternate TOS" movies should not come as a surprise at all.

In general, I doubt laws of nature play much of a role in how starships move or how Starfleet operates. Those are for losers - winners use brute force to overcome such petty concerns.

It's not as if today's warships would be interested in where the wind is blowing from: a skipper who tries to exploit the wind is simply going to die of stupidity, when others maneuver on basis of more relevant factors. Orbital mechanics ought to be even less relevant to starships: a planet can pull at a couple of gees at most, while starship engines routinely deal with hundreds or thousands of gees. And there are no "savings" involved in idling the engines, obviously, as we never heard of a starship idling the engines (everything keeps glowing at full intensity all the time, and there's no dialogue suggesting turning off propulsion to conserve X or Y).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

If there was ever a power failure on a starbase holding station at low altitude over a location

When have we seen a "power failure." We've seen the power deliberately turned off and also battle damage, but not a failure.

Unless you're in geosyncronous orbit, you don't ORBIT above a specific spot.

If an object is maintaining itself above San Fransisco at say two hundred miles, and given that the Earth turns on it axis, how doesn't the object orbit the Earth above San Fransisco?

 

[MGagen]

All true geosynchronous orbits are equatorial. San Francisco is not on the equator. There's no way to orbit "above San Francisco."

 

[Albertese]

All true geosynchronous orbits are equatorial. San Francisco is not on the equator. There's no way to orbit "above San Francisco."

Well.... this is sort of true. You are correct about it needing to be equatorial. But it wouldn't have to be literally straight up from the Earth's core through San Francisco and up to the orbital yards to be considered "above" the city. San Francisco is only about 38 degrees up from the equator meaning that it would have no problem seeing basically right up to geosynchronous orbit considering that GEO is pretty far away. Allow me to illustrate this for you to give you a sense of the distance and angles involved. Note how much farther away GEO is from LEO which is where the shuttles spent most of their time and the ISS lives today.

Everything in this illustration is pretty close to the correct scale.

From something in GEO orbit, assuming straight "down" is looking right at Earth's equator then San Francisco is a mere six degrees north of that. I think that's good enough to qualify as "above." Given how far away geosynchronous orbit is I think that when we're talking about it, it's probably more appropriate to discuss what it's "above" in terms of longitude than in terms of specific points on the globe.

--Alex

 

[SgtBukkakemanSF]

1). "Our vessel was constructed in space and has never felt the solidity of the surface of a planet." - Star Trek Writer & Director's Guide (Bible) by Gene Roddenberry (April 17, 1967).

2). "The unit components were built at the Star Fleet Division of what is still called the San Francisco Navy Yards, and the vessel was assembled in space. The Enterprise is not designed to enter the atmosphere of a planet and never lands on a planet surface." - The Making of Star Trek by Stephen E. Whitfield & Gene Roddenberry (Del Rey, 1968).

3). "Behind them was the breathtaking panorama of the old orbital drydock of San Francisco - but that installation was rapidly receding in size now, and Earth's huge dark sphere began to dominate the center image as it showed a last sliver of atmosphere halo from the now-hidden sun." - Star Trek: The Motion Picture by Gene Roddenberry (Simon & Schuster, 1979).

4). "Hoch über der Erde, in einer Umlaufbahn von 1680 Kilometer Höhe und mit einer Bahnneigung von 46 Grad, umkreiste das riesige Raumdock den blauen Planeten einmal in zwei Stunden. Dreimal täglich geriet es in Sicht des Starfleet-Hauptquartiers von San Francisco." (*) - Star Trek: Der Film by Gene Roddenberry, as translated/corrected/expanded into German by ST:TMP's technical advisor, Jesco von Puttkamer (Moewig Verlag, 1980).

Sgt. Bukkakeman, SFPD

* English translation: "High over the Earth, in an orbit of 1680 kilometers altitude and an inclination of 46 degrees, the giant spacedock circled the blue planet once every two hours. Three times a day it passed within view of Starfleet Headquarters in San Francisco."

 

[MGagen]

All true geosynchronous orbits are equatorial. San Francisco is not on the equator. There's no way to orbit "above San Francisco."

Well.... this is sort of true.

Actually, no; it is absolutely true.

The qualification you propose is "sort of true", but only in the sense that an object in that orbit would appear above the horizon from San Francisco. But the same statement would be true from any point on over a third of the earth's surface.

I only brought this up because some folks up thread were talking as if there is some way to orbit the earth and remain fixed directly above San Francisco. There isn't.

 

[Albertese]

^^^
I think our quibble is over the use of the word "above." You're correct in saying that you can't have a geosynchronous orbit at any other inclination than zero degrees which means that you can't have such an orbit straight directly up from the surface of San Francisco. I said this also.

But my qualifier about the use of the word "above" is absolutely true. It is above and to the south, fully visible over the horizon. This is, always has been, and ever shall be, the entire practical purpose of geosynchronous orbit. Parking something so it remains effectively stopped in space relative to a given longitude is, as I sense you know, the only way it works. And it is so it can be visible from basically everywhere but the polar regions.

The San Francisco Yards would be "above San Francisco" in the same sense that it would be above Portland, and Seattle. But it's named "San Francisco" because the facilities are a space-based extension of older ground facilities (as stated in TMoST).

Ultimately I think you and I are arguing for pretty much the same thing, but we're just choosing to be buttheads about it. I apologize if my tone came across as disrespectful.

--Alex

 

[BK613]

^^ Actually, a geosynchronous orbit can be inclined; it's ground track is an analemma. Geostationary orbits (a subset of geosynchronous orbits) are the ones that aren't inclined.

A geosynchronous orbit with a 37.77 degree incline, and aligned with San Fran's longitude, would put the Yards directly above San Fran once a day.

 

[Albertese]

^^ That's very interesting, I didn't realize the distinction. I will have to read up on this.

But I think it still seems unnecessary for the Yards to ever be directly overhead of the city. What difference would it make?

--Alex

 

[Ithekro]

So it can be farther away from the Bremerton Yard, or Mare Island Shipyard?

Or be in line with Newport News.

 

[Albertese]

I was wondering is an inclined orbit of 37.77 degrees would always be visible from the ground. So I made up this diagram:

I was surprised to see that it would indeed be always visible. But I still don't see an advantage to having it move eighty-five degrees up and down the sky all day. If you can just park it 46.4 degrees above the horizon and leave it there all the time...seems like a better plan to me. But I could be wrong; what advantage am I overlooking?

--Alex