There simply are no advantages AT ALL for building a ship on the ground, so why would you?
Yes there is. And it is the most important aspect of any enterprise - labor.
Building the component parts on Earth would allow an easier access to labor. Families could live next to the plant and still be on Earth. A comparison of the costs of maintaining a labor force near their home with the costs of maintaining a labor force away from their home gives great favor to maintaining that labor force near their home.
Component parts of the spacecraft will be built on earth for as long as is economically feasible.
Except that there will be people and families living in space, on starbases and the like, so labor will be in space just as well. Anyway, they'd be the TINY components, screws, computers, chairs, and such. The actual compartments, the hulls, a nacelle, a saucer, do NOT apply to that.
3D Master said:
So you should now know your argument is ridiculous, it's ridiculous for our time, and even more so for the Star Trek's time.
Naw, not really. Everything you're saying makes good sense, but the burden of proof is a bit higher than that. That being that there is absolutely, positively no way any of us can predict the best way to build ridiculously large spacecraft 250 years from now.
Thus, it's pretty hard for anyone to argue that they are
right, and anyone who says something to the contrary is
completely wrong on this issue.
The best we can hope for is a civil discussion of the pros and cons of each method of construction.
Claiming that logistics of moving certain things to space is too much to do so, when there are colonies, Starbases and what not everywhere, and WE are preparing to undertake exactly moving quite some construction to space when it's much more a physical nightmare for us, IS ridiculous. The moment your arguments stop making having ANY logical sense, not physics, logic - and the argument comes down to "it's too much hard work, I'm too lazy, let's quit" - you're arguments ARE
completely wrong on the issue.
You could spend minutes in space NAKED and still not be dead
Again unlikely, especially if you're in the sun. Being in shadow isn't much fun either.
Don't forget pressure. Our bodies push outwards at a pressure of 14 psi to compensate for air pressure. If you stuck a naked person in a vacuum (such as space), he would very quickly swell up and some parts of him (inside and outside parts) may burst.
Sure, they would swell up, BUT, it would take a long time. It isn't going to be, swell, splat, over in a few seconds flat. It would take quite a long time, your skin and other outer layers have quite some tension and aren't so easily torn to shreds. It would take a minute and more before you would die in such a matter. Or in other words, as I said, space simply isn't as hostile and isn't an instant killer as some people think it is. And that's NAKED. If you're in a space suit... oceans, and oceans and oceans of time of saving a person if something goes wrong, ESPECIALLY when you have transporters.
The chances of you dieing in space while wearing a space suit are infinitesimally small, especially in the 23rd century. Whatever dangers there are, don't measure up to the dangers of building it on the ground combined with the drawbacks.
It seems to me the bottom line is that if there was a tractor beam that could easily lift large parts into orbit, then it would be best to build those parts on the ground and and assemble in orbit.
Gravity is very beneficial when you are trying to assemble something since:
1.) things stay where you put them, and
No. Gravity does NOT mean things stay put. Gravity means things MOVE, down, pulled on by gravity. In space, in contrast, as there are no forces working on things, they stay put. This is simple high school physics. As for the force of you working on things, you've got tethers and stuff for that. Things you need on the ground just as much, so it is no difference.
2.) workmen don't need to be hard-connected to a massive object to prevent him from counter-rotating everytime he turns a bolt; or floating off in the opposite direction everytime he pushes on something. Luckily, gravity prevents those things.
Which is not a problem with the right technology, especially smart, compensating technology, stuff they have plenty of in the 23rd century.
Also, an object that is weightless is not massless. A massive object would crush a worker in space just as easily as it would on the ground. Space may be more dangerous in that respect since massive objects can float freely into workers.
No, it wouldn't, AGAIN, because in order to crush things, the things actually needs to be stuck between an unmoving object and the crushing object. In space, you're just tapped and sent sailing, and if the impact is big enough to hurt you it would, but it won't crush you. (Which gets us the added advantage of never having to lift a crushing object off of someone before you can help them.) And since in space there is no gravity working on the object, if something does start to move inadvertently, it will move only very slowly, and thus you have an easy enough time getting out of the way.
Don't forget pressure. Our bodies push outwards at a pressure of 14 psi to compensate for air pressure. If you stuck a naked person in a vacuum (such as space), he would very quickly swell up and some parts of him (inside and outside parts) may burst.
This is true. Humans can survive slow decompressions up to a certain point - it gives the body time to react to the pressure change. But a sudden decompression? The internal damage alone would kill you instantly.
Which will NOT kill you instantly. It will kill you, but it won't do it instantly.