Spacedock: When Was It Built?

[Cary L. Brown]

The evolution concept for Earth space dock still doesn't explain the existence of several other bases of the same design elsewhere in the Federation. I's unlikely 4 or 5 space stations (not guaranteed to be built by humans) would evolve the same way.

I never meant to imply it was random or uncontrolled upgrading...

My point was that this station... "Starbase One"... was probably in existence prior to TOS... but that the "mushroom cap" massive internal "Spacedock" complex was added onto the primary structure between TOS and TSFS.

Similar stations, based upon the same plan, may have existed in other places... and with the proven efficiency of this big pressurized (I'm sorry, kids, but there are VISIBLE BEAMS FROM SPOTLIGHTS inside of there... and that's not a production ERROR, it's there by INTENT. Which is impossible unless there's an atmosphere present to scatter the beams of light!) bay reducing the need for planetside construction and repair work, it would've been replicated in multiple places.

Why no changes between TSFS and early TNG (we only saw this once or twice, first and second season of TNG, isn't that right?)? Well, the REAL reason is that they were cutting costs by reusing existing optical elements, of course. But that's no fun, sooo....

Perhaps there was no need to really expand the interior space and all the reconstruction performed in that timeframe was technological, not constructional. The only change we KNOW had to have happened, based upon what we see in TSFS and in TNG, is that at least one of the four "spacedock doors" on the sides of the superstructure was enlarged sufficiently to allow Galaxy (and thus also Nebula) class ships to enter.

(The reality is that I just about GAGGED at the half-assed SFX from those sequences... reusing elements filmed for TSFS with no concern for the size/shape of the ships in the two shots! I personally put it in the same realm as "phasers coming out of the torpedo tube" or so forth... just crappy SFX!)

 

[Timo]

...However, the music is awesome. Just as with the gorgeous starship rendezvous in "The Child", the early TNG folks knew how to milk certain scifi cliches till the udders screamed of pain - but it really works for me.

And I appreciate how ST3 brought Trek back towards the "classic" if nonsensical scifi look after Probert had taken it a bit more towards contemporary space hardware realism (and thus inexplicably centuries back, as far as the show-internal timeline goes).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Basill]

The music was indeed delicious. (Ron Jones did some awesome stuff with what he had on early TNG.) I also really liked the overall approach to the starbase (even if it was just a reuse) the big ship passing outside viewed through the big windows, and of course that gorgeous interior matte painting by Andrew Probert. But the passage through the giant doors was a bit hard to swallow and the jump to warp was horrendous. I really liked Probert's (I think it was Probert's) idea of docking the Big-D to the outside of the station with a new docking modification for the larger capital ships. Scale and continuity could have been served. Budget and time ultimately had the last word of course.

What is really funny, if you watch the part where the Commander Quinteros and the Bynars are approaching the Enterprise through the airlock system... there is a slight editing gaffe. It appears the scene is backwards, as they are approaching the Enterprise exterior before they even enter the docking tube crossover!

 

[Timo]

True; it also seems that there are people moving in the windowed part of the tube before Quinteros turns the final corner (unlikely that there'd be corners in the tube!). Then again, we can say that there indeed are lots of people coming and going, and some precede Quinteros - and that the camera follows those people for a time.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tigger]

Also, I don't think Spacedock has any capability for building or even repairing starships. It has never demonstrated anything like cranes, or tools, or stores of components. It looks more like a big passenger harbor or airport terminal, only capable of handling passengers, freight, fuel and consumables plus basic cleanup and repainting duties.

We do, however, know at least one of the Spacedock structures at Utopia Planitia was used to construct (what was most likely) the USS Galaxy based on the holodeck scenes of Drafting Room Five with Geordi and Dr. Brahms in "Boobytrap".

 

[MyClone]

I rather like Cary's idea that the Spacedock was "grown" over time. But the size of the station and its siblings is what bothers me. From the outside window arrangement (if that is what the lighted panels are), it looks like Spacedock is built like a skyscraper, with level stacked upon level. Why would you need such a dense facility merely for people to work in when Earth -- which is a paradise, supposedly -- is right below? That's why I started thinking about Spacedock as mostly hollow, with giant fabrication facilities for starships inside. The windowed offices we see on its surface then would occupy only a thin layer of skin, which still means a vast number of people could work there, but not a ridiculous, Manhattan-sized number.

But maybe my imagination is failing me.

Best,
--MyClone

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I rather like Cary's idea that the Spacedock was "grown" over time. But the size of the station and its siblings is what bothers me. From the outside window arrangement (if that is what the lighted panels are), it looks like Spacedock is built like a skyscraper, with level stacked upon level. Why would you need such a dense facility merely for people to work in when Earth -- which is a paradise, supposedly -- is right below? That's why I started thinking about Spacedock as mostly hollow, with giant fabrication facilities for starships inside. The windowed offices we see on its surface then would occupy only a thin layer of skin, which still means a vast number of people could work there, but not a ridiculous, Manhattan-sized number.

But maybe my imagination is failing me.

Best,
--MyClone

I don't think your imagination is failing you... at least not exactly.

Here's "Spacedock" as seen on-screen.

I suspect that the first section built was the bottom-most section, the sphere... and that section was built as a big spaceborne environment... basically, I see this as a hollow shell with an "artificial sky" and so forth. Probably built a very long time ago, during the reconstruction.

Next, the middle "mushroom cap" section was added. We know that this is a dock section, because in ST-VI we see four underside-mounted spacedoors around the rim. It's probably a smaller space-borne construction yard, capable of handling smaller-scale vessels. But for the really big stuff (1701-ish ships), it would've been way too small.

Now, in between the "yard" and the "habitat sphere" I imagine it was originally just a lot of trusswork, tankage, etc... very industrial-looking. Not the smooth, cylindrical look we eventually have in that region. And I suspect that the "yard" was cruder initially.

I suspect that "the yard" was already underway, if not already in existence, at the time of the NX-01, albeit in a much cruder (and probably nearly unrecognizable) form.

The big problem was that with larger vessels being constructed, the spaceborne facilities couldn't handle anything that big... and thus the big components had to be constructed planetside and be lifted into orbit (not all THAT big of a deal, construction-wise, but a MAJOR issue in terms of transit time... sort of like making parts of a device in China, shipping it to Akron, then shipping it to Germany, then back to Akron again... not technologically challenging, just not the most efficient route).

SO... they created another section... the Spacedock complex... on top of the existing Starbase One structure, providing an otherwise essentially unobtainable environment... microgravity combined with a breathable atmosphere, capable of holding some really BIG ships not only in segments but in fact COMPLETE.

The thing to realize about construction is that it's almost never done entirely at one site. Bits and pieces are made in various locations, shipped to another, reworked or combined or whatever, then shipped to yet another location, and so on and so on.

So, for assembly of components into a full structure, you'd want a framework to wrap around the ship to hold the various parts in place while they're bolted to each other... something like the drydock seen in TMP.

For fine work... paint and polish, really... you'd want it done inside of the pressurized "Spacedock" facility. Which, of course, is what we see in ST-IV (remember seeing the little guy on top finishing the painting of the hull lettering?)

You might also do certain types of heat-treatments in there... things that the excessively-quick heat loss seen in a vacuum wouldn't be conducive towards. In other words, maybe you can weld in a vacuum, but unless you can anneal afterwards, you'd have brittle weldments... totally unacceptable!

Meanwhile, you'd probably still have big chunks of the ship constructed elsewhere and shipped in. I'm one of those people who likes the idea that the engine nacelles are manufactured elsewhere and shipped in for final assembly (just like is done for modern aircraft engines). Some of that (maybe most of it in some cases?) might be constructed in various other areas of Starbase One... or at San Francisco Naval Yards... or Utopia Planetia Naval Yards on Mars (or in orbit above Mars) or on Andor or anyplace else!

The trick for everyone to remember when thinking "starship construction" is that "all in one location" is a bad assumption to make. It's waaaay too complex... and each step would be done wherever it was most efficient to do.

 

[trevanian]

The little guy painting in IV is in the novelization, and he might be in the script as well, but he ain't in the movie.

 

[Timo]

Indeed.

We do, however, know at least one of the Spacedock structures at Utopia Planitia was used to construct (what was most likely) the USS Galaxy based on the holodeck scenes of Drafting Room Five with Geordi and Dr. Brahms in "Boobytrap".

How're we supposed to know that the scene takes place inside a Spacedock-type structure? We only see a small part of an interior wall there. For all we know, it's a hangar on the surface of Mars...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tigger]

How're we supposed to know that the scene takes place inside a Spacedock-type structure? We only see a small part of an interior wall there. For all we know, it's a hangar on the surface of Mars...

It does have the angled walls of the Spacedock structure as opposed to the more curved walls of the "barbell" stations.

And we've seen a Galaxy Class starship in major sub-assembled pieces on the surface of Mars at UP, but there was no large hangar structure nearby.

But you are correct it is up for interpretation, so I choose to interpret they built the USS Galaxy in one of the Spacedock structures at UP since they certainly had the space.

Perhaps prototypes are built there because they need tons of support staff. Once the design is "proven" with the prototype build in Spacedock, they move them out to the "spider docks" as we saw in Relativity with one of the later-build GCS. The follow-on ships would be built in major sub-assemblies on UP's surface and then lifted up into the "spider docks" for final assembly.

 

[trevanian]

This kind of ties in with the STARFLEET WENT REPUBLICAN notion of post TMP, that form and function aren't necessarily related, that Starfleet wanted something that looked good in PR shows rather than spaceframe functionality. Who cares what goes on there, it looks REALLY BIG. Who cares if the ships can't get out if somebody pulls the power plub on the dock, it looks REALLY BIG.

I'd like to point out that in TMP Kirk (who has just been through a TRANSPORTER which should be the be-all end-all in identification) has to prove his ID when he beams up to Scotty's spacestation. Also in Roddenberry's novel of TMP Kirk's first thought when Vejur's energy bolt hits the Enterprise and he is paralysed by the noise is "How do I tell Adm. Nogura that we need to base a weapon on this?" Also in the novel Kirk has a brain implant that is kept secret from the public for PR purposes.

Republican, indeed.

As minds far sharper than most on this board have pointed out, technology is neutral, it is what you do with it (or who wields it) that puts the bias or curse on it. In SFS, there is an atmosphere of paranoia in the earth scenes, so that is either Starfleet or Federation or both; in TMP, I don't see that (don't see much atmosphere at all to be honest.)

In the 70s, Cokenberry was enamoured of the tech advisor from NASA, so he probably spewed everything he could either into the film or, failing that, into the novelization (like in-head transceivers or perscan buckles or linguacode, then put a trekspin on it as his touch (what is it in the novel, he references some futurepast mindcontrol revolt on martian colonies or somesuch.) Wouldn't surprise me if the sound weapon aspect is actually something that ocurred to GR while watching TIE fighters in SW, since that banshee racket is based on german planes engineered to scare people.

 

[Timo]

Perhaps prototypes are built there because they need tons of support staff. Once the design is "proven" with the prototype build in Spacedock, they move them out to the "spider docks" as we saw in Relativity with one of the later-build GCS. The follow-on ships would be built in major sub-assemblies on UP's surface and then lifted up into the "spider docks" for final assembly.

OTOH, perhaps these Spacedock-type stations in general specialize in the sort of repair and maintenance that doesn't require any assembly? SB 74 was processing at least two starships in "11001001" by performing computer upgrades on them when they were docked within (the Wellington wasn't seen docked/floating outside, at any rate). This processing was probably as a sideshow to the general replenishment that would be carried out in this "passenger harbor" type installation.

In comparison, the E-D or the Galaxy could be within an enclosed dock in "Booby Trap" for similar software upgrades or installations. Never mind that a few hull plates were missing, they'd still be missing when the ship departed...

Interesting, BTW, that the installation in "Booby Trap" is called "the" Mars Station. That might imply a more central and substantial structure than the numerous floating installations seen in "Relativity". Or perhaps it means that this station is actually on Mars rather than just orbiting the planet.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The little guy painting in IV is in the novelization, and he might be in the script as well, but he ain't in the movie.

I haven't watched this one in several years, but I recall seeing him on-screen quite clearly. I do seem to recall that in the "pan-and-scan" version he wasn't visible, however... I always just attributed that to him ending up off-screen due to trimming. It's possible that I might just be mis-recalling... but I remember it very clearly (and I have never read either the novelization or the script!). My mental image is of the little guy standing just outboard of the "-A" on the port side... and he was moving around (maybe waving, kind of like the guy when the 1701 was leaving drydock in TMP?)

Now, there are only three possibilities here...

1) I'm remembering something that never existed anyplace else but in my own imagination (remember, I never read the prose versions, only saw the on-screen version).

2) The guy got cut off in the pan-and-scan version.

3) The version that's on DVD isn't the same as the one which was in theaters. Not really uncommon... I also remembered quite vividly the "close the blast doors, close the blast doors... OPEN the blast doors! Open the blast doors!" bit in the original theatrical release of Star Wars which got omitted in a couple of the releases (including the original, "unedited" VCR version) and has only been "re-added" in recent revisions.

I'm not entirely sure which is which... but I tend to think that #1 is the least likely. You, of course, are welcome to think whatever you wish...

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Indeed.

We do, however, know at least one of the Spacedock structures at Utopia Planitia was used to construct (what was most likely) the USS Galaxy based on the holodeck scenes of Drafting Room Five with Geordi and Dr. Brahms in "Boobytrap".

How're we supposed to know that the scene takes place inside a Spacedock-type structure? We only see a small part of an interior wall there. For all we know, it's a hangar on the surface of Mars...

Timo Saloniemi

Well, the structures inside of the big enclosed space aren't supported, so it's evident that they are in a microgravity environment, isn't it?

Now, it's true that in "Treknology" you have large-scale gravitational control... but it's also true that the simplest solution is usually the one you use, even in "Trekdom," isn't it?

SO... either we have FREE microgravity with a spaceborne structure, or you have artificial microgravity in a huge space on a planet-based structure.

The advantage to having it planetside would be the availability of an atmosphere... except that Mars doesn't have a terrestrial atmosphere (and, sci-fi storytelling concepts aside, Mars' lower gravity means that it could never permanently sustain a terrestrial atmosphere outside of enclosures!).

The advantage of having it spaceside is that you have free, 100% reliable microgravity. Even if planetside technology-based artificial microgravity is 99.99% reliable, it can never be 100%, can it? And if it were to fail at precisely the wrong time, the whole structure inside would come crashing down... not good!

SO... you have to have an artificial atmosphere in space OR on the surface of Mars. You have to have artificial microgravity on Mars but NOT in space.

Practically, it makes sense for it to be in space, and far less for it to be on the planet... based upon what we see on-screen.

Now... we also know that there are bits of starship being built on the surface. But those are out in the open, and it's highly likely that, although we can't see it in the views we get (which are nearly perfectly top-down), the starship components sitting on the surface are probably supported from underneath by some form of scaffolding... not just "floating."

 

[Timo]

There might be two versions of the scene shot. The one I have on VHS shows the entire hull of the E-A in such a manner that no pan&scan artifact could be held responsible for cutting off a spacesuited figure - so an entirely different VFX scene would have to have been shot and then pulled out from most versions of the movie in favor of this one.

I'm sure the spacesuit guy has been discussed on various Trek fori so many times that it could become remembered as "absolute true fact" the way so many other things do. I'm not sure if it was just a McIntyre invention to spice up the scene, or something McIntyre gleaned from an earlier script or indeed a shot but unused/seldom used alternate scene.

Well, the structures inside of the big enclosed space aren't supported, so it's evident that they are in a microgravity environment, isn't it?

What structures? All I see is the ship, missing some top plates but still intact. And we know starship hulls can resist gravity just fine without the aid of scaffolding.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I'd like to point out that in TMP Kirk (who has just been through a TRANSPORTER which should be the be-all end-all in identification) has to prove his ID when he beams up to Scotty's spacestation. Also in Roddenberry's novel of TMP Kirk's first thought when Vejur's energy bolt hits the Enterprise and he is paralysed by the noise is "How do I tell Adm. Nogura that we need to base a weapon on this?" Also in the novel Kirk has a brain implant that is kept secret from the public for PR purposes.

Republican, indeed.

"Republican indeed?"

Are you REALLY that brain-dead? Do you really think that 50% of the American population is inherently EVIL? Or just inherently STUPID?

Tallguy, I like you... so don't take this the wrong way... but you (and all the other guys who are so prone to pretending that "Republican" or "Conservative" means "Evil baby-eating monster" instead of "someone who just happens to think that their solution is better than the one I think is better but who still is trying to do the right thing") need to stop spouting political PROPAGANDA in these threads.

It's inappropriate. It's insulting to all the other people who may disagree with you on "what is the best solution to a problem" but who are still trying to find the best solution. It's factually inaccurate. And it's just generally STUPID.

I've seen a lot of this on this BBS recently... this sort of DUMBASS comment can't be let slide, any more than any of the other fascist, hate-mongering propaganda throughout human history should have been allowed to go unchallenged. "Paint the opposition as irredeemably evil and as a result you can treat them as badly as you like."

You, and all the other folks on this BBS who've been doing this lately, need to STOP, and THINK about what you're doing. It's not just a matter of insulting individuals who happen to be regulars on this BBS (which you ARE, by the way). It's not just a matter of being factually and/or historically incorrect. It's a matter of participating in, and buying into, an effort to discredit a competing ideology, not through debate over the merits of respective solutions to problems, but by painting the "other guy" as EVIL, which of course justifies any injustice perpetrated against them and makes it acceptable to NOT debate the merits at all.

If you don't want to derail a thread into a political argument... please try to refrain from spouting this sort of idiotic propaganda into that thread.

 

[trevanian]

Man, I think you missed TALLGUY's thing entirely, he was being sarcastic (at least that is how I took it, and it was aimed at me.)

Then again, I SUPPOSE I could be wrong.

EDIT ADDON: the tarring with a brush thing is, historically, something conservative elements have relied on more than leftist ones (at least as I recall it, wasn't it Nixon trashing Douglas?), so I'm kinda sorta surprised at your vehemence as well as your rhetoric.

Considering STAR TREK is thought of by many as a byproduct of Kennedy-era liberalism, there IS a legit aspect to politics in viewing it, and how it transmogrified later on. I certainly think of some TNG as being in that vein (as Nick Meyer described some of trek for OMNI in 91) as being the worst of 'plaid pants republican' kind of thinking. And as far as I know, it is okay to invoke politics when you're quoting an actual trek source in threads, ain't it?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Man, I think you missed TALLGUY's thing entirely, he was being sarcastic (at least that is how I took it, and it was aimed at me.)

Then again, I SUPPOSE I could be wrong.

If so, then his comment was misconstrued... but sarcasm in writing is much harder to identify sometimes... and I've seen a CASCADE of "republicans want to kill your puppies and force your infants to play with landmines" posts on this BBS recently... and it offends the hell out of me, on an intellectual basis.

EDIT ADDON: the tarring with a brush thing is, historically, something conservative elements have relied on more than leftist ones (at least as I recall it, wasn't it Nixon trashing Douglas?), so I'm kinda sorta surprised at your vehemence as well as your rhetoric.

No "rhetoric" coming from me here. But I'm just totally sick and tired of seeing these tactics... the same ones used by fascists throughout history... being applied here. This is supposed to be about a freakin' bit of ENTERTAINMENT.

That said... "tarring with brushes" is something historically conservative element have done? Can you honestly say that with a straight face? I'll just give you a few of the most egregious examples from the 20th century.

"The evil hun" ... used to stir up anti-German sentiment, and used to encourage Americans to harass and persecute their neighbors of Germanic descent... by Woodrow Wilson (D).

The rounding up and INTERMENT IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS of Japanese Americans. By Franklin D. Roosevelt (D).

Two pretty strong examples of "villanizing entire groups of people" don't you think?

Even today... the use of "identity politics" (treating entire population segments as though they are somehow all uniform and consistent) is something far more prevalent on the left.

You mention "Nixon trashing Douglas." I'm not sure how you're using this as an example of "tarring with a wide brush." Unless you consider Douglas to be a huge group instead of a single person.

There are bad guys in the world. There are good guys in the world. There are no purely good, or purely bad, guys in the world. And no political organization or social grouping has ANY special claim on being "good" or "bad" as a whole. That sort of "absolute" statement is nonsense.

You can trash ME... or any individual. You want to trash President Bush? That's one thing...

Of course, like with anything else, you need to argue honestly, not just say "well, he's evil so I don't need to debate the issues." That's a CHEAT.

It's one which has been commonly used to support consolidation of power, though. And of course, logically, "consolidation of power" is associated with what we now call "fascist" governments... it's really the central defining aspect.

Of course, conservatives are in favor of lower taxes and smaller government... pretty much the antithesis of "larger and more powerful government" isn't it?

Considering STAR TREK is thought of by many as a byproduct of Kennedy-era liberalism, there IS a legit aspect to politics in viewing it, and how it transmogrified later on. I certainly think of some TNG as being in that vein (as Nick Meyer described some of trek for OMNI in 91) as being the worst of 'plaid pants republican' kind of thinking. And as far as I know, it is okay to invoke politics when you're quoting an actual trek source in threads, ain't it?

Well, don't forget, Kennedy was a MASSIVE "warmonger" (by today's standards) and was also responsible for one of the biggest tax cuts in the history of the country. Kennedy, for whatever flaws he may have had, was never in favor of the sort of things which have been argued, in his name, since his death. It would've been interesting to see how things would've turned out had he not been killed so soon, huh?

 

[Tallguy]

Ok, I'm going to try this with grace and tact. Wish me luck!

trevenian, thanks for the clarification. Yes, that was the response. And I'll leave it at that.

Are you REALLY that brain-dead? Do you really think that 50% of the American population is inherently EVIL? Or just inherently STUPID?

None of the above. Really. I hold no such opinions about folk on either side of the "aisle". Certainly not anywhere close to 50%. And nobody frequenting these premises.

Tallguy, I like you... so don't take this the wrong way... but you (and all the other guys who are so prone to pretending that "Republican" or "Conservative" means "Evil baby-eating monster" instead of "someone who just happens to think that their solution is better than the one I think is better but who still is trying to do the right thing") need to stop spouting political PROPAGANDA in these threads.

I'm strangely relieved that I don't wear my political leanings as much on my sleave as I thought I did. I've never eaten babies and I've only occasionally been considered to be monstrous (but only by ex-girlfriends).

My political enthusiasms aside, this conversation actually pushed one of my Trek hot buttons: That ST2 / 3 is somehow more "military" or "conservative" or *cough* "Republican" than TMP or even TOS. This might not be any more appropriate for a tech thread, but at least it's Star Trek. I was just pointing out that TMP as envisioned by The Great Bird had just as many military and cloak and dagger trappings as Meyer / Bennett / Nimoy brought to it. I think that TSFS has many failings, but somehow becoming "Republican" is not one of them. If I WERE to paint it with this brush (and rest assured I'm NOT) I might consider that this is what Nimoy and co. might have thought a space-going military would be: all senseless paranoia that the Klingons wanted to take our stuff and had spies around every corner. (Oh, and going by the plot, they did and they were.)

Anyway, back to the mushroom: It looked cool. And that was it's whole purpose. As much as we'd love to blame ILM, somebody wrote a major plot point that hinged on the Enterprise having to fly into space through big closed doors. I've often thought of trying to do a "special edition" of TSFS without space dock, but can't get around the fact that those doors are integral to the plot.

Timo made a great point when he noted how much more "hard science" TMP was than it's successors in both look and execution. I know that this confounds me some when I try to do TOS designs. I want to ignore the TMP stuff, but it just makes so much SENSE. The mushroom otoh looks really cool but makes NO sense.

Oh, and I saw TVH opening night at the now demolished Kachina in Scottsdale, AZ. No little painter guy. Widescreen, pan and scan. Not there. Too bad. Nice fella.

 

[trevanian]

There are bad guys in the world. There are good guys in the world. There are no purely good, or purely bad, guys in the world.

On this we can most definitely agree.

And TALLGUY, yeah, you did that with a whole lot of tact, sincerely.

Although my understanding is that the spacedock doors thing was only built into the script AFTER ILM came up with their concept. There's quite a bit in old CFQs and elsewhere about how ILM was seriously exceeding the usual brief for VFX providers starting with SFS, what with Kirk Thatcher becoming an associate producer and Ken Ralston coming up with a whole character (the dogthing) to add to the film, plus ILM designing production-side stuff like tricorders, which seems really odd to me.

For years people spoke of how Abel's group stuck their design nose into production way too far on TMP, but shoot, they were responsible for devising some live-action sets (and Wise even had them shooting second unit transporter work.)

While they may have listened to the NASA guy too much on TMP, it seems to me they listened to their fx folks like ILM were NASA guys on SFS. That might have just been a commercial decision, but artistically I have always had a lot of trouble with it.

In a lot of ways, I think TWOK struck a balance, perhaps because Mike Minonr wasn't OTT scientifically enslaved, but he WAS informed ... so you have a lot of elements that look decent, and only a few (like the genesis cave, which is one area where ILM deviated massively from Minor's concept) that are abyssmal.

Hey, to get this back on track, howzabout we decide they did a BABYLON 5 thing here and stole the spacedock from the mirror universe, like B5 folk made off with B4 to another time?) All we need to do is put a big sword sticking out the bottom of spacedock, and a hilt/scabbard thing on top, and we're set.