In space. Because by the time you have the technology to build a thing like that on the ground in its entirety and lift it to orbit, building it in space would be much easier than it is today, and to boot, it would be SAFER.
If whatever keeps the stuff that's supposed to be up up on the ground fails, it comes falling down (incidentally not just killing whoever was in place, but also destroying the construction). In space, no such thing happens.
Do you suppose then that they construct large buildings in Trek's 23rd century in space, where it is "safer" according to you, and then lower them to the ground?
If they construct buildings on the ground, whatever keeps the stuff that's supposed to keep the building up fails, it comes falling down (incidentally not just killing whoever was in place, but also destroying the construction). In space, no such thing happens.
See? We can twist the "logic" around too and make absurd statements.
No, you fail to take in that nothing keeps buildings up. Buildings on the ground are built to be on the ground, their construction is such that it keeps itself up.
Space stations and starbases however, are NOT. The ISS is a string of tubes, beams and compartments, that on the ground would fall apart, but is the best and cheapest way to build to be in space. Similarly, a Federation starbase if you recall, is a cone. It won't stay up on the Earth by its own construction. Nor does the Enterprise.
IF, IF for some reason, they'd be building on the Earth, the construction they'd build would be able to be at rest on the Earth without any power-hungry help. The construction would be VASTLY different that what we see in space stations, or the Enterprise. The construction would either be pyramidal in shape (for a station), maybe a pyramid-like cone or a flat Defiant-like construction - one piece, flat (for a ship).
As for the rest of you: I was under the impression, some of you have even said so, that Star Trek was an optimistic view of the future. But apparently to you folks that is not as important as the kewl visual of Kirk riding on a motor cycle up to an Enterprise built on the ground. Yeah, you happily now envision Star Trek's future as populated by bad technology, idiotic and scaredy cat humans.
Why can't enlightened humans in the future be happy living on a planet? Having peace and no poverty on Earth so that people are free to, say, run their family's vineyard in France or their restaurant in New Orleans isn't "optimistic"? Why would "enlightened" people all want to go off into space and be cooped up in submarine-sized spaceships when they can have their choice of planet? This isn't a "logical" conclusion at all.
First of, by the 23rd century people aren't enlightened yet, that that happen until another century later.
As for "staying on a planet, stuck until it get blown to bits by its star", well there's this thing that they didn't, they went out and colonized the moon, mars, they built fleets of starships. And they colonized onward, eventually to the point of forming the Maquis.
But more importantly, people staying on a planet because they are "enlightened" would mean they cared about nothing that existed in the universe except sitting on that planet. These types of folks would not build fleets of starships. They wouldn't go out and explore. And as a result, they would also care nothing about enjoying say, the days with children. They would not let them watch a movie, enjoy a holodeck, a book, a theme park, visit other planets, and go to enjoyable things in place that children would like to do. They emotionless monsters that deny their children everything because it wouldn't be the enlightened thng to do.
What a fantastically optimistic view of the future! (Incidentally, it doesn't seem very enlightened to me either, I hope it doesn't to you the same way.)
Also they would never bring them along on a Galaxy-class starship... oh, wait a minute...
Point 1- I'll thank you not to call me or my views sad and pathetic. That's rude and childish.
Point 2- Who are you to judge the validity of my reasons for choosing not to watch a movie? Isn't it enough that I wouldn't _want_ to? Am I not allowed to make that decision based on whatever criteria _I_ deem appropriate, or do I need to submit them to some form of review first?
Point 3- If _any_ aspect of a movie disturbs someone to the point that they won't enjoy the movie, why SHOULD they watch it? I've recommended movies and other forms of media to people and failed to elicit their interest? So what? Their loss, and I move on. I fail to see how antagonizing them for their reasons not, in my eyes, being good would actually accomplish anything other than possibly making them _less_ prone to experiencing the media to begin with.
I guess you make a decent argument. I apologize. My rudeness comes from reading this forum and the likes of 3D Master.
@3D Master
Logic my ass. Trek Should learn a thing or two from Battlestar Galactica and Firefly: technobabble increases the nerd factor 100x. We don't need to know how stuff is done; the more you try to explain it, the less real it becomes because you know is all bs.
Seeing as Battlestar Galactica is barely known and even its best ratings couldn't even get close to the ratings of Star Trek's worst show Enterprise. It barely even got half, no, looking at Battlestar Galactica would be a BAD thing indeed.
Battlestar Galactica is a dramatically VERY BAD show, and scientifically as well. All the extremely advanced technologies like lasers, phasers, force fields and such that Moore didn't want to use, are exactly the technologies needed to produce the FTL drive - more advanced that Star Trek's FTL drive - as well sentient, artificial intelligence.
The result is, that Battlestar Galactica to anyone with even a passing knowledge of science and what we've got these days, looks ridiculous. They've got computers less advanced than us, yet artificial intelligence that those computers wouldn't be able to generate in a million years. Massively advanced FTL-drive, with not a shred of the technology needed to build it. In some ways, not just computers, less advanced than we are today.
It's ridiculous from start to finish.
Logic would make transporter technology usable only between two transporter devices.
No, it wouldn't.
Logic would make phasers instantaneus and almost invisible in space (unless there is a dust cloud or something). And don't tell me that crap about ranges. If two ships are visible on the same TV screen, then the range is irrelevant.
No, they wouldn't be invisible at all. Invisible would only be true for lasers, since they are light only emitting in one direction and frequency. The result is that no light is emitted away from the beam direction, and thus you wouldn't see it ANY medium that doesn't scatter the photons - not just space.
Phasers have no such problem, since they aren't lasers and thus not uni-directional monochromatic light. If phaser beams emit light away from the beam, you could see it.
As for the speed or lack there off, it's one of the major failings - but luckily a minor one that is forgiveable. I would however prefer an instantaneous energy pulse.
Logic would never alow senior officers (especially the captain) to go on away missions, only on diplomatic matters.
All senior officers? I think not. I would say that logically every away mission would require at least one senior officer in order to give the away team to benefit of his/her experience.
Logically, the rules would indeed say that a captain shouldn't go on away missions; but if the captain doesn't obey those rules, and the starship is indeed far away and the captain expected to be diplomet, military, explorer and scientist in one and be the full representative of the Federation, it would mean that he gets to do whatever he wants to while he's out there, and if the outcomes are all good nothing would probably be done about it. Kinda like explorer ships at sea several centuries ago. Those captains also left their ships when they could and felt like it.
In space. Because by the time you have the technology to build a thing like that on the ground in its entirety and lift it to orbit, building it in space would be much easier than it is today, and to boot, it would be SAFER.
If whatever keeps the stuff that's supposed to be up up on the ground fails, it comes falling down (incidentally not just killing whoever was in place, but also destroying the construction). In space, no such thing happens.
As for the rest of you: I was under the impression, some of you have even said so, that Star Trek was an optimistic view of the future. But apparently to you folks that is not as important as the kewl visual of Kirk riding on a motor cycle up to an Enterprise built on the ground. Yeah, you happily now envision Star Trek's future as populated by bad technology, idiotic and scaredy cat humans.
Congratulations!
How, in any sense of the word is it easier or logical, at any level of technology to build anything by hand in a zero gravity vacuum? I add the 'by hand' caveat because robots wouldn't notice the difference.
Ah, so in order for your little supposition to work, you must demand that everything is done entirely by hand, hmm? Tell me, how many constructions on the Earth NOW are done ENTIRELY by hand? No machinery used ANYWHERE?
We thus don't have to bother further answering that one.
There is nothing logical about building anything in space. The International Space Station is being built on Earth and assembled in orbit, the size of each segment is dictated by the capacity of the vehicle lifting it. Any advancement in reaching space will merely see bigger segments built on earth. Come the day when lifting anything is not an issue, entire structures will be built here and launched.
No. The only reason why we're building the ISS in space right now, is because we have no construction capability in space, not because it is illogical to do so.
You can go ask any actual engineer working for space endeavors; the amount of energy it requires to get something to orbit is so vast that it is much cheaper and proper to build it in space and then launch it from there, especially long range and larger ships. Everything you need to get to space takes fuel, fuel that you have to take with you, which is more weight, which you need push up, which requires more fuel to do so... etc. etc. etc.
With our present way of pushing something to orbit, you would, even, eventually get to a point that would take more fuel to push the construction and fuel up than it would take fuel to push the construction up. In short, you can't push it up anymore at all.
If nothing else, the entire workforce in orbit will have to wear gloves and take extra care that noting damages their fragile suit. I doubt anyone would volunteer to work in a dangerous environment with drills, hammers, torches, welding gear etc when it could be done on the ground.
That's odd, they seem to be volunteering to do just that all the time. The dangerous environment? The ground. People die or get injured ALL THE TIME. I have yet to hear of a single astronaut that got as much as a sprained ankle while floating in space and helping to construct the ISS; and that's with our primitive, bulky, no to hardly any way to rescue an astronaut if something goes wrong. No such problems exist by the 23rd century.
Quite frankly, in quite a few ways, space is actually safer to work in than the ground. It's only your fear of the unknown and "oh, my god, there's nothing outside my suit except rocks and radiation" idea that freezes you up and continues to make the claim "dangerous".
Is it "dangerous", sure, but so is the ground. You are in fact, more like to get hurt and/or die working on the ground, hell, even going in traffic, than you are to get hurt floating in zero-g.
And wheres the logic of having thousands of highly trained astronauts building fleets of starships, when the work would best be done by engineers, welders and whoever else it takes. Its not like boats are built in the water cos its more bouyant and illogical to build them dry.
Oh, right, I see, so an engineer, welders and workers aren't highly trained, hmm? You should tell that to the physics doctors who construct satellites and other constructions. I'm sure they'll enjoy being called "not highly trained".
Not to mention that annoying problem that the more we go out into space and colonize it and its bodies, the more people as standard operating procedure get taught on how to be in space in a suit.
AGAIN, for the umpteenth time; there are people NOW, who are imagining and planning TOURISM in space and zero-g in space suits. NOW.
I honestly cannot see where the pro-space argument is coming from, other than to fulfil some notion of 'its the future, dumbass, its different now...'
Yeah, that would be your problem. Maybe you should delve more into the science of things.
