I've always wondered what other cities on Earth look like in Star Trek's time. All we ever see are San Fransisco and Paris.
Skyscrapers in the background.
- Thread starter Anduril
- Start date
I've always wondered what other cities on Earth look like in Star Trek's time. All we ever see are San Fransisco and Paris.
I vaguely recall that the Star Wars universe uses something called ferrocrete. Please correct me if Im wrong but it was supposed to be lighter than regular concrete. For building enormous structures it would seem.
Any info about construction materials or techniques in our beloved Star Trek universe?
Any info about construction materials or techniques in our beloved Star Trek universe?
^ That was also my thought. I thought those Iowa buildings were massive factories of some kind. Not skyscrapers. Why would there be just two of them, and in the middle of nowhere to boot? If they're going to build skyscrapers, might as well build a whole city.
Well arcologies are basically whole cities in one huge building...so you are looking at at least two cities. They make excellent use of space. Or they could be factories...
RAMA
Other than "plasteel" from the novels, the only Trek material I can name OTOH is "duranium", which is what the ships' hulls are supposedly made of. That Voyager episode where Harry's stuck on Earth in an alternate timeline gave a name I can't remember (much like the name of the episode
) for what the mushroom-shaped spacedock was made of, and that it was impervious to phaser fire.The megastructures on Earth probably have low level versions of the structural integrity fields the starships and shuttlecraft have. Compared to moving at warp speeds, standing up under one gee should be easy.
Sarium-krellide is the battery-like material used in phasers and other portable devices, but I don't know how useful that is in a discussion of construction techniques.
I'm not really a fan of these skyscrapers. Mr. Laser Beam complained about Roddenberry's living underground idea. In my opinion, there is no difference between living in an apartment underground with no windows, and living in an apartment deep inside a huge arcology, also with no windows.
That makes sense...in either case, you're basically living in a cave. And who would want that? Claustrophobia would be a bitch.
Maybe you would have holowindows that are so real you do not care, and let in the right frequencies of light to keep you happy and healthy.
^ That wouldn't help (in my case anyway) since I'd still know I was living in a cave. Fake windows are still...fake.
There would be many entire parks inside the arcologies. It's not a big skyscraper, it's a multi-story city.
At least an above ground building would (or could) let in natural light from the outside. And some of the floors could even *be* "outside".
I'm just not sure what all the cave-hate is about in this thread.
:goes back to hibernating:
:goes back to hibernating:
I always wanted to lie on Deep Space 9. I could handle that amount of caveness no problem. They certainly have no parks and chances of sunlight.
Even a casual glance at the pertinent scenes (or at screencaps taken therefrom) is enough to show that there are more than two, and why not "in the middle of nowhere"? What would necessitate them being in close proximity to anything in particular?
^^If true, then shit, farms sure got big in the future. What does each cow have its own apartment?
Greenpeace won!
Indeed. Our early ancestors would have been glad to call a nice dry cave home. But these days I guess most people think underground cities are beneath them.
^ I see what you did there. 
Similar threads
