TMP/TWOK Dry Dock Question

[Pengy]

Really, if we want to consider the Constitution class groundbreaking (like fanfic and novels do, and like the Mirror Archer and Trip thought, even if it's never canonically stated), we might just as well give her a different set of onboard systems from her predecessors.

Something groundbreaking was introduced in the time Vina was stranded on Talos IV. Jose Tyler said "And you won't believe how fast you can get back. Well, the time barrier’s been broken. Our new ships can--"
Possibly the speed improvement didn't originate with the Constitution class, but I assume the new ships were appreciably different from ships of 16 years previously.

 

[Vance]

That's a bit of an artifact from when 'Star Trek' was being billed as MUCH closer to the 'present' than it wound up being. But, taking the line at face value, I always considered it the difference between impulse power (fusion drive) which allowed for relatively low warp speeds and the M/AM powerplants of the Constitution class.

 

[USS KG5]

But nobody is in any hurry to develop bow thrusters for supercarriers and supertankers today.

Not that its really relevant but they did put a very impressive maneuvering system on the Queen Mary 2, so the technology does exist to put precise controls on a carrier or a supertanker.

IIRL I imagine they just have not seen the need as you state for such devices, apart from anything else on a military vessel it is one other thing that takes up space/can malfunction/can be damaged for minimal gain.

That said I have never seen anything in trek that convinces me that starships are not capable of maneuvers on a pinhead where necessary, the TMP and TWOK launches from dock and the TSFS and TUC launches from spacedock are totally under the ships power.

 

[Tallguy]

But nobody is in any hurry to develop bow thrusters for supercarriers and supertankers today.

That said I have never seen anything in trek that convinces me that starships are not capable of maneuvers on a pinhead where necessary, the TMP and TWOK launches from dock and the TSFS and TUC launches from spacedock are totally under the ships power.

Well, I think the scene in TUC was a pretty direct (but loving) rebuttal to, well, US, for whining that the ship used impulse power out of dock back in TWOK. "Thrusters only while in space dock."

 

[Search4]

Well, as promised some drydock pictures. This is the piece as it sits, modified for Generations. It's LARGE. I am trying to decide whether to fix it up -back- to Generations, or to look litke the version from ST TMP. Your thoughts appreciated.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Speaking of the large starbase structure with the enclosed docking facility, I wonder if it has the capability to pressurize sections of the docking bay to make it easier for workers to construct/repair ships? Obviously there's no airlock in the main chamber, as we've seen from the movies and a few scenes in TNG. I know we're talking about a massive area to pressurize, but with replication technology, it should be possible.

This is a topic that'll get people arguing, but still...

Look closely at the scenes set in "Spacedock." You can see beams of light. Now, in a vacuum, there would be nothing to disperse light, so you could never see the beams. Thus, if you are going to trust the evidence of your eyes, you'd have to conclude that the interior of Spacedock is pressurized.

It's well-established that Treknology allows for the use of forcefields, and even that there are atmosphere-tight forcefields associated with starship shuttlebays (this is from TMP onwards; there's no evidence of it in TOS). However, such forcefields aren't really 100% reliable (and if power fails, they're 100% unreliable!). So, you have a physical door there and only use the forcefield during launching/landing operations.

I see "Spacedock" as being the same sort of thing. It's a big pressurized environment for doing certain types of starship repair work which otherwise would need to be done planetside. It has the advantage of a working atmosphere (meaning not just that it's easier to work in, but that certain processes, like welding, will just work better!) but also has the advantages of microgravity.

One could say that prior to the construction of this big enclosed "Spacedock," you'd have to do some processes in a planetary environment, or that it would be easier to do them in a planetary environment.

Heck, you might have to build the components of a Starship at the San Francisco Navy Yards and lift them to orbit for final assembly without the presence of a big enclosed pressurized volume like "Spacedock" provides.

Oh, and this also gives a good reason for there being a regulation stating "Thrusters ONLY while in Spacedock."

 

[Basill]

^^ I've always been fond of that theory.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

But, we also know that they came up with Photon Torpedoes in the middle of the first season, because they were screwing up with Phasers. It just happened that we never saw a situation in TOS where RCS would come up. There was no drydock scenes, etc. If there was such a scene for TOS, they probably would have been written in ('maneuvering thrusters!')

Unlike all the other aspects of the Trek franchise, TOS was very much a 'work in progress' in nearly every aspect. Nothing was nailed down, and tech and details would change as the show progressed. It's hard for me to be religious in adherence to what we're presented with when I know all of what was going on with the show.

It's not like there weren't OTHER aspects of the Enterprise expressly mentioned that we never see, such as escape pods, aft phasers, broadsides, etc. An RCS system could, for the sake of franchise consistency, just be handled the same way.

But think about what we're really arguing here, a grand total of six clusters mounted four on the hull and two in the nacelles. Really, if it weren't for the big yellow markings for them on the uprated Enterprise, would they be that noticeable?

In this case, I just figure that it's easier to accept that they're THERE, along with the phaser banks, torpedo launcher, and gangway, than invent entire reams of treknobabble to explain why they aren't.

Agreed.

What I don't' want to see is a "retcon" that says that there were big colored marking areas around the emplacements. In ST-TMP, we got those mustard-yellow "warning/danger" markings around both the phasers and the reaction-control thrusters (not the "manuevering thrusters" which are the four little recesses on the back of the secondary hull!) The markings were presumably added because some people got too close to a "hot" thruster or phaser and got injured or killed... and the 23rd-century version of OSHA came along and required the addition of "safety markings."

In the TOS era, it's entirely reasonable to assume that very similar control thrusters were present (perhaps even in the same locations, but behind "shutters" when not operating?) which we simply couldn't see on our 1966-era TV screen.

 

[FalTorPan]

Search4, all I can say is... wow.

Did I mention, "Wow?"

 

[Tigger]

Look closely at the scenes set in "Spacedock." You can see beams of light. Now, in a vacuum, there would be nothing to disperse light, so you could never see the beams. Thus, if you are going to trust the evidence of your eyes, you'd have to conclude that the interior of Spacedock is pressurized.

Just because the interior of Spacedock is not a pure vacuum does not posit that it must therefore be a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere with a pressure of around 101.325 kPa.

It is quite possible, even plausible, that what is being reflected in the beams is exhaust product from the reaction thrusters and impulse drive, metallic (or other) debris, micrometeorites or cosmic dust captured inside, etc. etc.

It just strikes me as...dangerous...to pressurize such a large volume...

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Look closely at the scenes set in "Spacedock." You can see beams of light. Now, in a vacuum, there would be nothing to disperse light, so you could never see the beams. Thus, if you are going to trust the evidence of your eyes, you'd have to conclude that the interior of Spacedock is pressurized.

Just because the interior of Spacedock is not a pure vacuum does not posit that it must therefore be a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere with a pressure of around 101.325 kPa.

It is quite possible, even plausible, that what is being reflected in the beams is exhaust product from the reaction thrusters and impulse drive, metallic (or other) debris, micrometeorites or cosmic dust captured inside, etc. etc.

It just strikes me as...dangerous...to pressurize such a large volume...

Okay... I'll bite. Why?

Pressuring a large volume is no more or less dangerous than pressurizing a small one. No more than pressuring a large SCUBA tank is more dangerous than pressurizing a small one. Less so, in fact, since we're not talking about an internal pressure of many, many atmospheres (as in compressed air tanks) but just a single atmosphere.

Consider how thick the outer hull of Spacedock's main interior bay is. And realize that in pressure vessels, you're dealing with only one force... tension... at any cross-section. The tension is defined by the projected area across which the pressure acts, times the pressure itself. That gives a measure of force. You then distribute this force through the structural area, and you get the stress which has to be withstood for any given wall segment.

Bluntly stated... the interior pressure of just one atmosphere will result in so low of an applied stress value that you could get by with a simple sheetmetal skin. But we have a section that's dozens of meters thick (yes, not SOLID but certainly many orders of magnitude more robust than a simple 1/8" thick aluminum wall!) and far more robust than would be required to maintain a simple 1 atm internal environment. The other stresses it's designed to resist (gravitational stresses... Valeris using impulse drive in spacedock... Klingons off the starboard bow... ) would be far greater.

The biggest problem with an internal pressurized environment would be the fact that, since NOTHING is perfect, there are always tiny leaks... so you'd need to replenish the atmosphere fairly regularly. But if the issue is "have a big pressurize bay in orbit" in order to do hull repairs or apply new paint jobs... or whether you have to disassemble the ship and take components down to the planetary surface... it seems like it's the better choice, doesn't it?

 

[Timo]

That's lovely detail on the Generations box dock! I like the tiny "executive shuttle" a lot...

And I'd hate to lose that detail. My vote goes for refurbishing the thing to its full Generations glory.

The barracks assembly with the tiny shuttle seems to swivel on an arm. Is the swiveling mechanism functional or just for looks? And is the outer end of the "barracks" really curved to match the ventral curve of the Enterprise-B so that the two could meet when the barracks swivel?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Starship Freak]

I agree with Timo, I really like the attention to detail with the executive shuttle. Any chance you could post a larger pic? Any more pics of the model with a more overall view?

 

[Reverend]

Yes, the Generations configuration is clearly preferable, if for nothing else than it having that little shuttle!

As for pressurising Spacedock, while it would have it's advantages, I think it'd be too much of a fire hazard to have all that oxygen floating around those VERY hot impulse engines and nacelle grills. Also that space is big enough that it could generate limited weather patterns, which would be a hassle for the workbees to deal with.
Either way, with all the starship exhaust floating around, any oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere would quickly become toxic anyway, so I don't think it'd be worth the trouble.

 

[Vance]

I would have to say to keep the 'Generations' configuration. It's pretty much what you already have, and I would hate to see it risked getting damaged trying to retro-grade it back to the TMP design.

 

[Search4]

As a long-term lurker, its great fun to be posting.
Interestingly enough, i have just come across what i hope are the rest of the original drydock pieces... the ones they took off the original for generations. I do not have a picture yet. But i'm leaning to using those original pieces (incuding the 'arm' the connected to the Enterprise) as part of an original restore... which means i'll have that office structure left over... lets see how hard and how much work.

The piece is crated and i can't get better pictures without a full uncrate... perhaps next week when we plan the rework. Its in pretty bad shape which is typical of models. Even if restored back to "generations", most of the side pieces are detached, and the whole lighting system needs refurbishing. More work required to get to original.

I can't speak to the RCS thrusters and such (you guys are doing a fine job), but it does come with a ca. 1976 transistor radio!

I don't believe that office complex "swings" out, but will check. (in the real world, if it does, it would be because the Enterprise-B sizing would not have been known when they were reworking the model.)

 

[FalTorPan]

Search4, an excellent resource for your work would be the drydock's designer, Andrew Probert. He's a busy person, but I'm sure he'd get a kick out of hearing from the prop's new owner.

 

[Search4]

You bet - i'll send a note today. Great tip.

 

[Gepard]

^Wow. Really cool photos Search4. Where the heck are you storing that thing?

Might I direct you to the Replica Prop Forums (if you don't already know about them)? I bet they'd love to see some pictures of the miniature; I remember a lot of speculation there during the auction about who was winding up with all the cool ships.

 

[Search4]

Thanks Gep - I'll check out the forum.

The model is in my garage - that's the only place it will fit. One of the goals in the renovation is to figure out how to modify it from one-huge-piece to something that can be taken apart and managed more easily.