Drydocks

[AriesIV]

No, as I already indicated in my earlier post, Enterprise was built in space. This was established long ago by Gene Roddenberry himself. You can argue the point all you want, but you can't change what's already been determined by the Great Bird.

It's this kind of slave-ish devotion to bullshit details and "canon" that really really diminish the enjoyability of interacting with Fandom.


It's especially interesting when I get someone who behaves this way and then launches into an anti-religion spew. It's funny that the slave-ish devotion to bullshit details and "canon" is the biggest single thing that these people rant against.... yet they can't step back from the altar of Trek and see themselves...

Wow.

Ok.

So you've made up your mind based on utter mindless devotion to a detail from 25-30 years ago uttered by someone who's influence on the show has been vastly diluted.

In other words you're not here to learn other possible ways to interpolate this structure nor do you CARE about other possible ways or the fact that people are taking time to present these ideas.

No you are here to CONVERT us to the HOLY CHURCH OF CANON as seen by Aahz.

Ok carry on. I'll have some missionaries from my church stop by and tell you why your life is wrong and why you need to subscribe to our way of life OR ELSE.

Wait! You say that's WRONG and very irritating having to argue logic with a moron? *quickly holds up a mirror*



I trust you understand I am not attacking you as a person just your illogical thought process.

 

[Aahz]

The correct light orientation when entering is actually the opposite of that - hence the mnemonic "Red Right Returning." Right lights are kept to starboard when entering a port or drydock; green lights are kept to starboard when exiting.

To my knowledge (which is admittedly somewhat weak in this area), this protocol and the mnemonic are for channel lights. Ships travel both directions through a channel, but the lights are the same color all directions, necessitating the change in orientation. Leaving from inland areas and heading to open water, green lights are kept to the right. Coming from open water and heading inland, red lights are kept to the right, prompting the mnemonic.

Since docks themselves don't handle two-way traffic, they would need only one orientation. Now, whether a dock slip has green on the right or on the left is the remaining question. I searched for photos of dock/port/pier/terminal lights at night, but I couldn't find any. Nor could I find any rules or regulations on such lights at the Coast Guard site (but maybe I was looking in the wrong place). If someone knows of such a photo or video, please post it here.

If the dock were a moving vehicle (in other words, a ship), it would have to have a configuration of lights like a ship, not a dock. Ships do not have columns of red/green lights. But one thing ships have that docks don't is strobes. Notice that all the travel pods and work bees, and the Enterprise itself once it's under power, have strobes. The dry dock doesn't. Dry dock isn't meant to be a moving vehicle -- it is a (relatively) stationary structure.

That's not entirely true. Floating dry docks (AFDs in U.S. Navy classification) are ships that are capable of partial flooding to embark ships for remote dry dock repairs. They also have columns of red and green navigational lights, like those used on the TMP dry dock. In this photo, the navigational lights can be seen at the upper corners, behind the rows of decorative and working lights.

That's very interesting -- I was unaware of AFDs. Also very interesting is the fact that the nav lights on the upper corners appear red on the right and green on the left in the photo, although the submarine is facing toward the camera. The gangway is also on the submarine's port side. This is the same orientation as the Enterprise in drydock in the photo -- the port side of the ship is on the same side as the red lights.

 

[Wingsley]

No, as I already indicated in my earlier post, Enterprise was built in space. This was established long ago by Gene Roddenberry himself. You can argue the point all you want, but you can't change what's already been determined by the Great Bird.

It's this kind of slave-ish devotion to bullshit details and "canon" that really really diminish the enjoyability of interacting with Fandom.


It's especially interesting when I get someone who behaves this way and then launches into an anti-religion spew. It's funny that the slave-ish devotion to bullshit details and "canon" is the biggest single thing that these people rant against.... yet they can't step back from the altar of Trek and see themselves...

Wow.

Ok.

So you've made up your mind based on utter mindless devotion to a detail from 25-30 years ago uttered by someone who's influence on the show has been vastly diluted.

In other words you're not here to learn other possible ways to interpolate this structure nor do you CARE about other possible ways or the fact that people are taking time to present these ideas.

No you are here to CONVERT us to the HOLY CHURCH OF CANON as seen by Aahz.

Ok carry on. I'll have some missionaries from my church stop by and tell you why your life is wrong and why you need to subscribe to our way of life OR ELSE.

Wait! You say that's WRONG and very irritating having to argue logic with a moron? *quickly holds up a mirror*



I trust you understand I am not attacking you as a person just your illogical thought process.

Well, at the risk of stepping into the crossfire here, let me point out that when I made the O.P. for this thread, it should have been pretty clear that this was a discussion of details and conjecture on those details. If this isn't your cup of tea, that's okay. But I do not understand why you want to "attack" someone else's "illogical thought process" in a thread you apparently have no use for.

 

[AriesIV]

I'm more frustrated with the "well X person who worked on the show said Y and therefore it can't ever be changed" than the speculation part. The rest of the discussion is fascinating and I've learned quite a bit about drydock operation.

 

[Wingsley]

Actually, I would assert that an central part of this thread would be Probert and Roddenberry's take on making the original drydock for TMP. While the concept appears to have evolved since then (the 2009 Abrams movie not withstanding), the original concept itself is one of the things I was asking about in the O.P.

I agree that this is a fascinating discussion. What surprises me is how multi-faceted it has become. There are actually several sub-discussions going on here. It's like one topic has evolved into several.

 

[AriesIV]

Yeah really. I love threads like this.

I however can do without the "canon dictates..." nonsense. If Trek is to evolve and grow we can't be tied to a 30+ year old comment pulled out of someone's ass at an interview.


Think about it. Why are the Borg so scary? Because they CHANGE and ADAPT. Someone tells a Borg "this is what was laid down 30 years ago by someone in an interview" you are going to be declared irrelevant.... then assimilated.... and then you will be THAT DRONE. You know... the one that gets shot by Harry Kim. By accident.

PLEASE DO NOT BE THAT DRONE!!

 

[Colonel Midnight]

Reference the photos I linked to earlier. The drydock has columns of red lights on the port side and green lights on the starboard side, and white lights along the top, bottom, and sides. The correct entry orientation would be to have the column of red lights on your left (port), the column of green lights on your right (starboard), and a row of white lights only at the top and not across the bottom or in the center. If you see any other configuration, then you're approaching the dock from the wrong direction/angle.

The correct light orientation when entering is actually the opposite of that - hence the mnemonic "Red Right Returning." Right lights are kept to starboard when entering a port or drydock; green lights are kept to starboard when exiting.

If the dock were a moving vehicle (in other words, a ship), it would have to have a configuration of lights like a ship, not a dock. Ships do not have columns of red/green lights. But one thing ships have that docks don't is strobes. Notice that all the travel pods and work bees, and the Enterprise itself once it's under power, have strobes. The dry dock doesn't. Dry dock isn't meant to be a moving vehicle -- it is a (relatively) stationary structure.

That's not entirely true. Floating dry docks (AFDs in U.S. Navy classification) are ships that are capable of partial flooding to embark ships for remote dry dock repairs. They also have columns of red and green navigational lights, like those used on the TMP dry dock. In this photo, the navigational lights can be seen at the upper corners, behind the rows of decorative and working lights.

I was hoping someone would mention "Red Right Returning"!

And, incidentally, all marine dry-docks are floating structures... permanent/land-based facilities are either 'graving docks' (a pit in the ground with doors on the water-side) or 'marine railways' (where the ship is hauled out of the water along a railway type structure).

There's also boat lifts for itsy-bitsy boats, as well.

The calculations needed for each type to lift or float a ship are different, so it's best to keep them separate.

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Cicero]

The correct light orientation when entering is actually the opposite of that - hence the mnemonic "Red Right Returning." Right lights are kept to starboard when entering a port or drydock; green lights are kept to starboard when exiting.

To my knowledge (which is admittedly somewhat weak in this area), this protocol and the mnemonic are for channel lights. Ships travel both directions through a channel, but the lights are the same color all directions, necessitating the change in orientation. Leaving from inland areas and heading to open water, green lights are kept to the right. Coming from open water and heading inland, red lights are kept to the right, prompting the mnemonic.

Since docks themselves don't handle two-way traffic, they would need only one orientation. Now, whether a dock slip has green on the right or on the left is the remaining question. I searched for photos of dock/port/pier/terminal lights at night, but I couldn't find any. Nor could I find any rules or regulations on such lights at the Coast Guard site (but maybe I was looking in the wrong place). If someone knows of such a photo or video, please post it here.

If the dock were a moving vehicle (in other words, a ship), it would have to have a configuration of lights like a ship, not a dock. Ships do not have columns of red/green lights. But one thing ships have that docks don't is strobes. Notice that all the travel pods and work bees, and the Enterprise itself once it's under power, have strobes. The dry dock doesn't. Dry dock isn't meant to be a moving vehicle -- it is a (relatively) stationary structure.

That's not entirely true. Floating dry docks (AFDs in U.S. Navy classification) are ships that are capable of partial flooding to embark ships for remote dry dock repairs. They also have columns of red and green navigational lights, like those used on the TMP dry dock. In this photo, the navigational lights can be seen at the upper corners, behind the rows of decorative and working lights.

That's very interesting -- I was unaware of AFDs. Also very interesting is the fact that the nav lights on the upper corners appear red on the right and green on the left in the photo, although the submarine is facing toward the camera. The gangway is also on the submarine's port side. This is the same orientation as the Enterprise in drydock in the photo -- the port side of the ship is on the same side as the red lights.

Dry docks are often two-way. The one in the photo above is, but this image shows the principle better. The navigational lighting on each end of the dry dock is essentially a mirror image of the lighting on the other end, because ships might enter or leave from either direction.

I actually mentioned this in an earlier post, but everyone seems to have missed it for some reason. ::shrugs::

I was hoping someone would mention "Red Right Returning"!

And, incidentally, all marine dry-docks are floating structures... permanent/land-based facilities are either 'graving docks' (a pit in the ground with doors on the water-side) or 'marine railways' (where the ship is hauled out of the water along a railway type structure).

There's also boat lifts for itsy-bitsy boats, as well.

The calculations needed for each type to lift or float a ship are different, so it's best to keep them separate.

Cheers,
-CM-

That's very interesting; I'd never realized that those other docks/railways aren't dry docks.

Thanks.

 

[Aahz]

I'm more frustrated with the "well X person who worked on the show said Y and therefore it can't ever be changed" than the speculation part. The rest of the discussion is fascinating and I've learned quite a bit about drydock operation.

Well, AriesIV, I certainly don't want to frustrate you or anyone else either posting or lurking here. And I'm certainly NOT the "be-all and end-all" of Star Trek canon -- far from it! But one thing that originally made Star Trek so realistic, believable, and enduring, was Gene Roddenberry's adherence to detail and continuity (whenever possible). Yes, there are well-known lapses in continuity (just ask the Vulcanian, Mr. Spock, and James R. Kirk of the United Earth Space Probe Agency), but overall GR established a detailed, contiguous universe in which Star Trek takes place.

While a lot of detail has been established both on-screen and off-screen, there is still an incredible amount of information that is lacking. Using real-life science and speculation to fill in the gaps is both interesting and fun for many a Star Trek fan. I think that is what Wingsley was wanting to do by starting this thread -- fill in the missing Trek-knowledge and Treknology behind the drydocks.

However, changing what is already established is, for all intents and purposes, changing Star Trek from what it is to what it isn't. Am I devoted to details? Maybe, and maybe not. But like I said, details are what helped make Star Trek believable and enduring. If you start changing established details, then which ones should you change, and where do you stop? Or do you stop at all? Do you see what I mean?

I don't pretend to be the only one who has all the answers, and I'm not opposed to speculation from others. In fact, I think the ideas posted here are really cool. For example, I had no idea that the blue panels might be used for anything other than light, until it was suggested that they provided a stable temperature to keep the ship's components from expanding and contracting. Fantastic insight! Or the deflectors for orbital debris -- important inclusion on an open structure like this. On the other hand, the idea of a drydock that can descend to the surface to retrieve an assembled ship, while interesting, doesn't apply to this particular structure for the reasons we've discussed. I never said that another as yet unvisualized structure couldn't do just that.

Let me suggest this: Let's confine speculation to things that are still unknown in the Trek universe. That way we can avoid future arguments.

And even though JJ Abrams' Star Trek is now established, it is both a reboot and an alternate timeline, so comparisons between it (and future Star Trek films) to previous Star Trek incarnations would not work. That doesn't prevent speculation about technology in the JJ Abrams universe, though...

 

[Cicero]

^ We have seen ships constructed on the surface before, though. "Parallels" showed a Galaxy-class starship under construction on the Martian surface.

To my knowledge, we've never seen a ship in an orbital dry dock that was substantially less complete than that Galaxy-class ship seems to be. It actually looks roughly as complete than the Columbia did in "The Expanse." (The saucer shape is largely finished, but not filled-in, and the nacelles are unattached - the action we see under way in "The Expanse".)

Aside from potential atmospheric problems - which parallel similar difficulties in space - I don't see why building on a planetary surface would be particularly difficult for a society that controls gravity so granularly as the Star Trek world seems to (indeed, seems to from at least the 2150s onward - roughly 130 years before TMP).

 

[Aahz]

Dry docks are often two-way. The one in the photo above is, but this image shows the principle better. The navigational lighting on each end of the dry dock is essentially a mirror image of the lighting on the other end, because ships might enter or leave from either direction.

I actually mentioned this in an earlier post, but everyone seems to have missed it for some reason. ::shrugs::

I didn't miss it, but I don't think it applies to the TMP drydock, the main reason (ok, so probably the ONLY reason) being the gangway on the port side. The saucer section of the Enterprise and the Reliant (the only two ships of that size and saucer design we've seen) have gangway doors only on the port side. (Excelsior and Enterprise-B have saucers with a different shape, so they wouldn't have gangway doors.) If they entered the drydock the wrong direction, the gangway wouldn't connect. And judging from the model, the gangway isn't relocatable like the light panels and umbilical arms are.

Now, if what you say about the navigational lights on the AFDs is correct, and the TMP drydock follows this precedent, then the lights on the other side of the TMP drydock should also be green left and red right. I'll have to see if I can come up with a photo or screencap showing which orientation it is. That's something we should be able to establish, and would eliminate speculation.

 

[Wingsley]

There has always been some level of disconnect between the various sub-franchises of TREK. When TOS ended and TAS began, there was obviously some disconnect (remember the use of life support belts?). Despite this novels and subsequent movies and series did occasionally throw fans a bone by at least loosely connecting the shows with some neat little tidbit of historical continuity. So TOS thru ENT is a loosely connected chain, a series of series if you will, that told a grander story of sorts. Sort of.

JJ Abrams 2009 movie was obviously a reboot. While there was a kind of baton-passing with elder Spock's cameo, it should be pretty obvious that the whole reboot was a way of eliminating all ties to what STAR TREK once was. Abrams' TREK is clearly meant to stand on its own, separate, with only superficial ties to the legacy of Roddenberry and Berman. To try to enjoin or superimpose the Roddenberry/Berman era with the Abrams 2009 movie might produce some amusing possibilities, but it seems to me that the conceptual differences (not going into any specifics here) would be almost as silly as bridging TOS with ALIEN or STAR WARS. In the end, they are very different approaches that do not seem compatible.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But Enterprise was built on the ground, no matter where it was DESIGNED to operate.

No, as I already indicated in my earlier post, Enterprise was built in space. This was established long ago by Gene Roddenberry himself.

You can argue the point all you want, but you can't change what's already been determined by the Great Bird.[/quote]
Did he determine that in canon? If not, it's irrelevant. And contradicted by STXI anyway.

Which doesn't change the overall point that there's no reason to intentionally set out to design "a structure that only functions in space" since, by definition, EVERYTHING WE'VE EVER SEEN in Star Trek fits that description.

True that, yet nevertheless the drydock was designed specifically for that look, and the function of the drydock was specifically to be a space-only construction/repair facility. Again, no amount of arguing will change that.

Indeed. And the lights you described on the space dock evidently serve the same purpose to aid in the docking of starships.

Hardly. It's one thing entirely to bring a ship into a dock at a slow speed, needing only left/right orientation and angle (and up/down in the case of spaceships), but its another thing entirely to land a plane on a carrier deck at full speed, needing precision flightpath and roll angle information.[/quote]
It's literally a difference of one hundred and five miles per hour. Not much more than that. In the case of starships, the difference in mass more than makes up for the disparity in velocities.

Also true, but I didn't make that up

It doesn't matter who made it up, it's a physical impossibility.

However, the fan community has more-or-less determined that the San Francisco Fleet Yards are in geostationary orbit at the same longitude as San Francisco.

And I should care about what the fan community thinks why?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Actually, I would assert that an central part of this thread would be Probert and Roddenberry's take on making the original drydock for TMP. While the concept appears to have evolved since then (the 2009 Abrams movie not withstanding), the original concept itself is one of the things I was asking about in the O.P.

I agree that this is a fascinating discussion. What surprises me is how multi-faceted it has become. There are actually several sub-discussions going on here. It's like one topic has evolved into several.

Trek BBS in a nutshell.

As far as the original concept it was pretty much just an orbital staging area for the construction of starships, a bit of free-flying infrastructure for workers and equipment. Its other features are open to speculation because most of the stuff Probert put into the concept were omitted or unexplained from the model and some extra things were added as finishing touches. The abundance of floodlights would themselves be extremely useful for an orbital construction station, especially one that slides into shadow every 40 minutes and only gets sunlight on one side for the other 40.

JJ Abrams 2009 movie was obviously a reboot. While there was a kind of baton-passing with elder Spock's cameo, it should be pretty obvious that the whole reboot was a way of eliminating all ties to what STAR TREK once was. Abrams' TREK is clearly meant to stand on its own, separate, with only superficial ties to the legacy of Roddenberry and Berman. To try to enjoin or superimpose the Roddenberry/Berman era with the Abrams 2009 movie might produce some amusing possibilities, but it seems to me that the conceptual differences (not going into any specifics here) would be almost as silly as bridging TOS with ALIEN or STAR WARS. In the end, they are very different approaches that do not seem compatible.

Differences in approach aside, IMnsHO the technical/stylistic approaches in STXI are far more consistent with technical conventions depicted in TMP than it is with TOS (and they have more in common with each other than the TOS movies did with the original series).

For a specific example, stylistically, the 2009 Enterprise has alot more in common with the TMP Enterprise than either of them have with the TOS version. There may be a certain disconnect there, but if you assume that some things are going to be common in both universes then you can expect to see things from the TMP era show up in the Abramsverse that would have seemed silly even in TOS.

 

[Aahz]

^ We have seen ships constructed on the surface before, though. "Parallels" showed a Galaxy-class starship under construction on the Martian surface.

Now you're talking TNG-era. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax. In the TNG era, they had things like McKinley Station, which looked a LOT like it was specifically designed to lift a completed ship (or portion thereof) off the surface of a planet:

I have no idea whether or not Greg Jein designed McKinley Station to operate in that way, but it looks like it could. The model was designed with jointed "fingers" to reach around a ship, so it could be a "surface-grabber."

Plus, the image of a Galaxy-class ship being constructed at the Martian Utopia Planitia Yards shows only the surface-based part of the facility. The orbital facility contained several drydocks of the TMP-era type in addition to several of the McKinley Station type. Perhaps the McKinley "claw-type" stations are used to lift the components to orbit, and final assembly is done in the drydock. The drydock seems better suited to on-orbit work, given the versatile nature of the framework and all the lighting (and other stuff we discussed here). McKinley doesn't have all-around lighting.

That doesn't preclude drydock from being a refit facility as well. The ship to be refit/repaired would enter and moor with the drydock, work would commence, and the ship would exit when complete. Replacement components, such as new warp nacelles, could be brought up using "The Claw."

 

[Aahz]

No, as I already indicated in my earlier post, Enterprise was built in space. This was established long ago by Gene Roddenberry himself.

Did he determine that in canon? If not, it's irrelevant. And contradicted by STXI anyway.

There is more to "canon" than what actually made it to screen. The original Star Trek Writer's Guide included information that was to be considered "canon" (a term that was applied by Gene R. sometime after Star Trek was well underway), whether or not it ever appeared in a script. The fact that the Enterprise was built in space and was never to enter the atmosphere of a planet was included in the Guide.

And whether or not Star Trek XI contradicts it is irrelevant. Star Trek XI is a separate reality.

Also true, but I didn't make that up

It doesn't matter who made it up, it's a physical impossibility.

You may not have picked up on it, but I was agreeing with you on that point.

However, the fan community has more-or-less determined that the San Francisco Fleet Yards are in geostationary orbit at the same longitude as San Francisco.

And I should care about what the fan community thinks why?

You know, I can't tell you what you have to care about. But the location of the San Francisco Fleet Yards was never established, except by name ("San Francisco") and that it was in space (because the Enterprise was built in space at the San Francisco Fleet Yards). The best rationalization that the fan community has come up with is that the Yards orbit at the same longitude as San Francisco (much like the Utopia Planitia Yards orbit Mars over Utopia Planitia). While not directly overhead, they still stay within direct line-of-sight of each other. Whether you care to accept that rationalization is up to you.

BTW, you may want to go back and correct the QUOTE tags in your post -- it's kinda hard to read as it is.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, as I already indicated in my earlier post, Enterprise was built in space. This was established long ago by Gene Roddenberry himself.

Did he determine that in canon? If not, it's irrelevant. And contradicted by STXI anyway.

There is more to "canon" than what actually made it to screen.

No, actually, there isn't.

You know, I can't tell you what you have to care about. But the location of the San Francisco Fleet Yards was never established, except by name ("San Francisco") and that it was in space (because the Enterprise was built in space at the San Francisco Fleet Yards).

No, see, it's the "in space" part that was never established. The reference to San Francisco comes from the dedication plaque, but there are no clues as to WHERE the yards would be located. Other than, obviously, San Francisco, where during the time of TOS a real world naval station actually existed where starships were serviced and constructed.

In any case, to assume the yards would be anywhere other than the place they were named after is kind of silly. Cape Canaveral airforce base is located AT Cape Canaveral, it's not on a floating oil rig three hundred miles offshore. An orbital station hovering "sort of" over San Francisco has no physical connection to speak of with the city and therefore no reason to share its name.

The best rationalization that the fan community has come up with is that the Yards orbit at the same longitude as San Francisco

The better one is the yards are located IN San Francisco and that starships are built there and transported into orbit somehow for final shipfitting and testing. I have yet to see any compelling reason why this would NOT be so, especially since it has never been canonically established that the ship was built in space.

 

[Aahz]

The best rationalization that the fan community has come up with is that the Yards orbit at the same longitude as San Francisco

The better one is the yards are located IN San Francisco and that starships are built there and transported into orbit somehow for final shipfitting and testing. I have yet to see any compelling reason why this would NOT be so, especially since it has never been canonically established that the ship was built in space.

You're going to have an uphill fight selling that. Take a look at what Memory Alpha has to say about it:
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Fleet_Yards

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The best rationalization that the fan community has come up with is that the Yards orbit at the same longitude as San Francisco

The better one is the yards are located IN San Francisco and that starships are built there and transported into orbit somehow for final shipfitting and testing. I have yet to see any compelling reason why this would NOT be so, especially since it has never been canonically established that the ship was built in space.

You're going to have an uphill fight selling that. Take a look at what Memory Alpha has to say about it:
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Fleet_Yards

Thoroughly irrelevant, as the article was written based on the same speculation you're shopping around right now.

 

[C.E. Evans]

^ We have seen ships constructed on the surface before, though. "Parallels" showed a Galaxy-class starship under construction on the Martian surface.

Now you're talking TNG-era. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax. In the TNG era, they had things like McKinley Station, which looked a LOT like it was specifically designed to lift a completed ship (or portion thereof) off the surface of a planet:

I have no idea whether or not Greg Jein designed McKinley Station to operate in that way, but it looks like it could. The model was designed with jointed "fingers" to reach around a ship, so it could be a "surface-grabber."

Those "fingers" could also serve as docking pylons for smaller ships too, IMO (like DS9). The Voyager's dedication plaque lists that it was built at McKinley Station, so it's possible that she was built alongside a couple of smaller ships docked there too.

McKinley Station probably can be configured to fit a number of different-sized and -shaped vessels if necessary, with the Galaxy-class being among the largest it can take...