Drydocks

[Aahz]

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). [...] 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...

That's exactly what it was designed to do -- adjust the "fingers" to accomodate different size/shape ships. Don't know if there were docking ports on the "fingers" or not, but here are a couple of closeup photos of the restored model:

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.

Actually, USS Voyager was built at the Utopia Planitia Yards but launched from McKinley station. I don't know why that would be, seeing as how those are orbiting two different planets (Mars and Earth, respectively), but perhaps the dedication and launch occurred after a test run between Mars and Earth before she was completely outfitted. Then, after the test run, she was outfitted and dedicated at McKinley station.

 

[AriesIV]

Ya know.

The space station we have now was built in space from modules sourced and assembled on the ground.


Just saying...

 

[C.E. Evans]

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.

Actually, USS Voyager was built at the Utopia Planitia Yards but launched from McKinley station. I don't know why that would be, seeing as how those are orbiting two different planets (Mars and Earth, respectively), but perhaps the dedication and launch occurred after a test run between Mars and Earth before she was completely outfitted. Then, after the test run, she was outfitted and dedicated at McKinley station.

I know...but I always felt that was kind of "wrong" not to have where a ship was actually built listed on the dedication plaque. The ship could have spent months or years being constructed at Utopia Planitia, but if she was commissioned at Johnny's Space Burger Shack the following Tuesday, then the latter would be listed on the dedication plaque rather than the former. I'm not arguing the point against onscreen canon, though, because I think having the Voyager relocated to Utopia Planitia was done for the sake of the story in "Relativity" and probably because the Enterprise-D was built and/or commissioned there too...

 

[Aahz]

Actually, USS Voyager was built at the Utopia Planitia Yards but launched from McKinley station.

I know...but I always felt that was kind of "wrong" not to have where a ship was actually built listed on the dedication plaque. [...] I'm not arguing the point against onscreen canon, though, because I think having the Voyager relocated to Utopia Planitia was done for the sake of the story in "Relativity" and probably because the Enterprise-D was built and/or commissioned there too...

I don't really like it, either, but that's the way it is. Most likely the set people made the plaque based on the original story premise, but the writers introduced the change somewhat arbitrarily, and the discrepancy was never caught.

BTW, here's a nice image of Voyager in one of the Utopia Planitia drydocks:

This is the same drydock model as the one seen in "Star Trek: Generations", the modified drydock model from TMP.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Actually, USS Voyager was built at the Utopia Planitia Yards but launched from McKinley station.

I know...but I always felt that was kind of "wrong" not to have where a ship was actually built listed on the dedication plaque. [...] I'm not arguing the point against onscreen canon, though, because I think having the Voyager relocated to Utopia Planitia was done for the sake of the story in "Relativity" and probably because the Enterprise-D was built and/or commissioned there too...

I don't really like it, either, but that's the way it is. Most likely the set people made the plaque based on the original story premise, but the writers introduced the change somewhat arbitrarily, and the discrepancy was never caught.

Then again, maybe it was. Looking at the episode, I don't believe it was said specifically at any point that the Voyager was actually built at Utopia Planitia--only that she was a brand-new ship that had yet to be fully tested in the field.

It's possible that the Voyager was built at McKinley Station after all and then moved to Utopia Planitia for her space trials. It wouldn't change the Voyager from being a new and untested ship in "Relativity," especially if she had yet to undergo a shakedown cruise. Memory Alpha may have just made a judgement call and said it was reverse.

BTW, here's a nice image of Voyager in one of the Utopia Planitia drydocks:

This is the same drydock model as the one seen in "Star Trek: Generations", the modified drydock model from TMP.

Yep, each drydock is naturally scaled either up or down depending on the size of the ship.

It's possible that both the Utopia Plantia and the San Francisco shipyards have planetside central offices and laboratories with the actual construction platforms (drydocks) being in orbit above them, IMO.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Except for the fact, once again, that "orbits" don't actually work that way, and the dry docks from the San Francisco yard would actually share an orbit--and a local section of the sky most of the time--with facilities from a dozen other organizations, civilian stations, orbital habitats, communication satellites, and a dozen parked freighters looking to offload a shipment of bobblehead geisha dolls. Even in a geostationary orbit (which the TMP dry dock is NOT) that circular orbit is over a point in the middle of the pacific; the offices might as well be anywhere in the solar system.

And that's before we even get to the point of "fleet yards." It's an often overlooked fact that any two objects in the same orbit will not STAY that way unless they're on the same inclination and altitude. Even small differences in inclination--say, two apples floating inside of a room in an orbiting space craft, ten meters apart--means the objects will have slightly different orbits and will appear to precess around each other in their ascending/descending nodes. Alot of complicated stationkeeping would be required to keep these docks in anything resembling a coherent formation, and then only if you allow them to slowly whirl about each other in a giant merry-go-round fashion. Makes alot more practical sense to simply use a "service orbit," a pre-defined altitude and inclination used ONLY by space docks and construction facilities.

Assuming you gave every one of those facilities a group name like, say, "the John Archer Port Ring" or something, they could be said to be a contiguous grouping. But to name a group of orbiting structures after a geographic landmark is just plain silly.

 

[Unicron]

Jackill's work includes the Type III Aztec mobile drydock, which I always rather liked. They were primarily designed to serve as temporary repair bases for military purposes or to be sent to rescue a heavily damaged or crippled ship, but when not performing such functions they can be deployed at the major shipyards to provide extra work space and berths.

 

[C.E. Evans]

^ Except for the fact, once again, that "orbits" don't actually work that way, and the dry docks from the San Francisco yard would actually share an orbit--and a local section of the sky most of the time--with facilities from a dozen other organizations, civilian stations, orbital habitats, communication satellites, and a dozen parked freighters looking to offload a shipment of bobblehead geisha dolls. Even in a geostationary orbit (which the TMP dry dock is NOT) that circular orbit is over a point in the middle of the pacific; the offices might as well be anywhere in the solar system.

And that's before we even get to the point of "fleet yards." It's an often overlooked fact that any two objects in the same orbit will not STAY that way unless they're on the same inclination and altitude. Even small differences in inclination--say, two apples floating inside of a room in an orbiting space craft, ten meters apart--means the objects will have slightly different orbits and will appear to precess around each other in their ascending/descending nodes. Alot of complicated stationkeeping would be required to keep these docks in anything resembling a coherent formation, and then only if you allow them to slowly whirl about each other in a giant merry-go-round fashion. Makes alot more practical sense to simply use a "service orbit," a pre-defined altitude and inclination used ONLY by space docks and construction facilities.

Assuming you gave every one of those facilities a group name like, say, "the John Archer Port Ring" or something, they could be said to be a contiguous grouping. But to name a group of orbiting structures after a geographic landmark is just plain silly.

All of which, of course, doesn't mean anything. If the facility is called the San Francisco Fleet Yards and does have planetside offices in San Francisco, it doesn't matter where its actual orbit takes it (the space shuttle doesn't cease to be a U.S. shuttle when it's not above the U.S., for example).

 

[Lord Manitou]

In Star Wars novels their are no dry docks although the authors relate extensive situations in ship yards and with half-way built ships.
Obviously, the dry docks depicted by JJ Abrams is a thing bolted together for convenience sake. This might house a wide variety of technologies for use and at different times.
Put together with efficiency in mind and economical, a dozen or a hundred like Utopia Planitia could be bunched together and exist over a location on Earth or Mars.

 

[Birdog]

^ Except for the fact, once again, that "orbits" don't actually work that way, and the dry docks from the San Francisco yard would actually share an orbit--and a local section of the sky most of the time--with facilities from a dozen other organizations, civilian stations, orbital habitats, communication satellites, and a dozen parked freighters looking to offload a shipment of bobblehead geisha dolls. Even in a geostationary orbit (which the TMP dry dock is NOT) that circular orbit is over a point in the middle of the pacific; the offices might as well be anywhere in the solar system.

And that's before we even get to the point of "fleet yards." It's an often overlooked fact that any two objects in the same orbit will not STAY that way unless they're on the same inclination and altitude. Even small differences in inclination--say, two apples floating inside of a room in an orbiting space craft, ten meters apart--means the objects will have slightly different orbits and will appear to precess around each other in their ascending/descending nodes. Alot of complicated stationkeeping would be required to keep these docks in anything resembling a coherent formation, and then only if you allow them to slowly whirl about each other in a giant merry-go-round fashion. Makes alot more practical sense to simply use a "service orbit," a pre-defined altitude and inclination used ONLY by space docks and construction facilities.

Assuming you gave every one of those facilities a group name like, say, "the John Archer Port Ring" or something, they could be said to be a contiguous grouping. But to name a group of orbiting structures after a geographic landmark is just plain silly.

All of which, of course, doesn't mean anything. If the facility is called the San Francisco Fleet Yards and does have planetside offices in San Francisco, it doesn't matter where its actual orbit takes it (the space shuttle doesn't cease to be a U.S. shuttle when it's not above the U.S., for example).

I think the San Francisco Fleet Yards is an outgrowth of the USN Facilities at SF. If you are starting up a space navy(late 21st early 22nd century) wouldn't you piggy back on your wet navy's infrastructure? Use the offices and engineering at the Navy base to support the orbiting yards. Perhaps components were manufactured at the Navy base and loaded on to rockets that were towed out to sea and launched into orbit. Later it becomes an Earth Star Fleet facility and later still a UFP Star Fleet facility.

 

[Aahz]

I think the San Francisco Fleet Yards is an outgrowth of the USN Facilities at SF. If you are starting up a space navy(late 21st early 22nd century) wouldn't you piggy back on your wet navy's infrastructure? Use the offices and engineering at the Navy base to support the orbiting yards. Perhaps components were manufactured at the Navy base and loaded on to rockets that were towed out to sea and launched into orbit. Later it becomes an Earth Star Fleet facility and later still a UFP Star Fleet facility.

EXACTLY! And who's to say there's not a Newport News Shipbuilding yard in orbit over Virginia? Or an Admiralty Shipyards in orbit over St. Petersburg?

Although the Earth-based facilities haven't shown both land- and space-based facilities, we HAVE seen both land- and space-based facilities at the Utopia Planitia Yards at Mars (which, by the way, were named after a SURFACE FEATURE). Thus, there is precedent established for this arrangement, so there's no reason to believe that this is the ONLY arrangement of its kind, and there's no reason to believe that this kind of arrangement didn't start with the San Francisco Fleet Yards.

As for the orbital yards staying more-or-less over their ground-based counterparts, it would make sense that the various large structures of a complex yard like Utopia Planitia (and by inference San Francisco) would use tractor beams to keep the structures at a specified distance from and a specified orientation with each other for safety reasons. And having tractor beams like that, the structures would not drift in relation to each other, so they would effectively orbit the planet as a single large structure. And orbiting the planet as a single large structure like that, the entire complex could hold its position in a geostationary orbit. And in a geostationary orbit like that, even though it is directly over the equator, the complex could remain aligned on the same east-west longitude as its ground-based counterpart, which would ease communications as well as transporter operation, both of which would be essential to such an operation.

BTW, newtype_alpha, do you have DirecTV or DISH Network at your home or office? If so, you're maintaining communications with a geostationary satellite more-or-less over your location, even though the satellite is technically over the equator.

 

[T'Girl]

Cape Canaveral airforce base is located AT Cape Canavera.

Tiniest of quibbles, it's Patrick Air Force Base at Cape Canaveral, a portion of which is a Cape Canaveral Air Force station (that's where it's launch pads are).

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

The problem with that is, from TMP, the dry dock IS directly over San Fransisco, in numerous shots, both outside the office complex and the dry dock itself, the San Fransisco peninsula is visible in the direct background. In the time frame of the movie, these shots are hours apart. The dry dock isn't over the pacific ocean on the equator.

Nor does it appear to be high enough to be in a geosynchronous orbit. Maybe a few hundred miles, sure, but not over twenty-two thousand miles above sea level. From geosynchronous orbit. the Earth is only 17.4 degree wide and that isn't what we're seeing on screen. Holding a small dinner plate at arms length is what the Earth looks like from GEO. The dry dock is much lower.

Both the dry dock and the office complex are (somehow) actively holding position above the city of San Fransisco. Thrusters, tractor beams, or something else, but it isn't moving during it's time on screen.

I however can do without the "canon dictates..." nonsense.

I will often include in my posts words like "might," "perhaps," and "I believe," to indicate when I'm conjecturing, expanding and in some cases creating stuff out of whole cloth. And you AriesIV are as free as I to do so.

But canon is craved in stone my friend.

 

[Search4]

BTW, here's a nice image of Voyager in one of the Utopia Planitia drydocks:

This is the same drydock model as the one seen in "Star Trek: Generations", the modified drydock model from TMP.

Well, i have a big question about this statement - i OWN the drydock, and received it in the Generations configuration, and can confirm that this looks nothing like what i got. I don't think this is a model i have seen - would guess that it is CGI.

Thoughts?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think the San Francisco Fleet Yards is an outgrowth of the USN Facilities at SF. If you are starting up a space navy(late 21st early 22nd century) wouldn't you piggy back on your wet navy's infrastructure? Use the offices and engineering at the Navy base to support the orbiting yards. Perhaps components were manufactured at the Navy base and loaded on to rockets that were towed out to sea and launched into orbit. Later it becomes an Earth Star Fleet facility and later still a UFP Star Fleet facility.

EXACTLY! And who's to say there's not a Newport News Shipbuilding yard in orbit over Virginia? Or an Admiralty Shipyards in orbit over St. Petersburg?

I am. Because none of these sites are equatorial and nothing can orbit "over" them.

As for the orbital yards staying more-or-less over their ground-based counterparts, it would make sense that the various large structures of a complex yard like Utopia Planitia (and by inference San Francisco) would use tractor beams to keep the structures at a specified distance from and a specified orientation with each other for safety reasons. And having tractor beams like that, the structures would not drift in relation to each other, so they would effectively orbit the planet as a single large structure.

Which then adds 3 serious problems:
1) the issue of craft/people/objects crossing those beams inadvertently
2) the fact that craft/people/objects IN the docks aren't being held by tractor beams and will continue to precess along a natural orbital inclination and
3) It's an unnecessary layer of complexity that provides zero benefit and produces the above hazards, as well as a number of potentially disastrous failure modes.

There's no reason not to simply put the docks in a line along the same orbit. And major reason TO do so: because a clearly defined orbit intended for use ONLY by Starfleet dock facilities simplifies traffic control and allows civilians to avoid that orbit altogether, eliminating the risk of accidental collision (at orbital velocities, something the size of a shuttlecraft crashing into your dry dock is going to have the kinetic energy of a B-52's bomb load; that's something you should try to avoid, shields or no shields).

And orbiting the planet as a single large structure like that, the entire complex could hold its position in a geostationary orbit.

The TMP drydock was not in geostationary orbit.

BTW, newtype_alpha, do you have DirecTV or DISH Network at your home or office? If so, you're maintaining communications with a geostationary satellite more-or-less over your location, even though the satellite is technically over the equator.

I don't, but it remains fairly irrelevant since the satellite is not directly over my house, nor are those satellites named after the city in which their management offices are located.

 

[Wingsley]

[

But canon is craved in stone my friend.

I think you meant "carved", right?

I love typos. Throw plenty of 'em around all the time!

 

[AriesIV]

*loads cannon*

But canon is craved in stone my friend.

Then as it is written because you are not a Latter Day Saint nor do you desire to become one... your soul is destined to wander eternally before the gates of heaven... never joining with God and Christ and never knowing peace.

Sorry my friend that's Canon and its carved in stone. Noting I or anyone else can do about it!

I mean come on already... so it is written so it shall be. This is what someone decided almost 200 years ago when this church was founded.

Can't be changing things or being flexible now that's just not proper ya'll hear me.

If however you want to get on board and save yourself and be JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE who is a member of my church send me a PM --- OH WAIT YOU CAN'T I haven't been here long enough.

Well there you have it. Canon dictates you are DOOMED and there is nothing we can do to change it. It is canon... after all.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The problem with that is, from TMP, the dry dock IS directly over San Fransisco, in numerous shots, both outside the office complex and the dry dock itself, the San Fransisco peninsula is visible in the direct background. In the time frame of the movie, these shots are hours apart. The dry dock isn't over the pacific ocean on the equator.

I'm forced to interpret this as a coincidence, since the relative motion of the travel pod and the guys in the space suits can't be made consistent with a structure that is actively hovering in full gravity. The way I see it, an orbit at about 600km with an inclination of 35 degrees would pass over (or at least, relatively close) to San Francisco six or seven times a day. We only saw a view of Earth a couple of times in TMP, so it's possible we simply never saw out of a window at a time when the dock was over New Guinea or something (likewise, we never saw the dry dock in full sunlight either).

 

[Aahz]

BTW, here's a nice image of Voyager in one of the Utopia Planitia drydocks:

This is the same drydock model as the one seen in "Star Trek: Generations", the modified drydock model from TMP.

Well, i have a big question about this statement - I OWN the drydock, and received it in the Generations configuration, and can confirm that this looks nothing like what i got. I don't think this is a model i have seen - would guess that it is CGI.

Thoughts?

Are you NCC1701.US? Wow! Nice to see you here! I am in awe of your collection!

Perhaps it is indeed a CGI re-creation of the drydock. But comparing certain details on the drydocks in both Generations and Voyager, it appears to be the same model, perhaps lit differently so that it appears to be a different structure. Voyager and the Enterprise-B are two ships of vastly different size -- Voyager being approx. 343 meters and Enterprise-B being approx. 511 meters. Yet the ships look to be the same proportional size to the drydock. Something had to be done to make the drydock for Voyager look smaller. Maybe it was simply lighting, maybe it was CGI, but it had to be something.

As I'm sure you WELL know , the Generations drydock had two rows of six 2-light panels (which were modified from the originals) within the latticework (the center rows and the seventh column were removed from the TMP model). The large support structure was added to the underside of the upper portion of the drydock (the hangar/workshop/office space). Also, an asymmetrical office and shuttle landing complex was added to the lower forward portion of the inner port framework. You make note of these changes on your Website.

These elements (seen in this image from Generations) compare very favorably to the drydock seen with Voyager in the image above. Differences in color could be the result of lighting, exposure, or the fact that Generations was shot with film while Voyager was shot with video (I think).

There was no other drydock of this configuration sold at any of the Star Trek memorabilia auctions. If they aren't the same model, then either there is another model hanging around somewhere, or it is a really good CGI re-creation.

Either way, thanks for the information, and especially thanks for restoring the TMP model to all of its original glory (and sharing the photos)!

BTW, since your Enterprise model isn't original, where is it from? Oh, and you can answer a question from earlier in the thread -- are there red and green nav lights on both ends of the drydock model, and if so what is their orientation?

 

[lennier1]

@AAhz: You didn't have to write half a novel for that. Just look at the ceiling above Voyager. It's mostly smooth with only a simple texture whereas that same section on the the physical model is detailed to death and back again. Just one of many dead giveaways (like the completely different habitat section anchored to the side of the ship).

 

[David cgc]

Well, i have a big question about this statement - i OWN the drydock, and received it in the Generations configuration, and can confirm that this looks nothing like what i got. I don't think this is a model i have seen - would guess that it is CGI.

Thoughts?

Oh, it's definitely a CG recreation of the Generations version of the drydock. It's been used in other pure-computer shots, like the cover of the first Ships of the Line calendar, as well as an image of the Utopia docks that's a gussied up version of the establishing shot in "Relativity" (more ships, Spacedock-style space stations instead of the smaller ones in the episode), and the shot at the top of this page.