• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Masao Meets Franz Joseph Meets K-7

Sam McCord

Lieutenant Commander
You know...

I was looking at the Franz Joseph starbase, then looking at Masao's Vanguard Station, and then looking at K-7, and came up with this for Starship Gemini... a hybridized design utilizing elements from all three designs...

station.gif


I'm gonna develop it further.
 
Thanks... I'm doing some refinements to it as we speak... I am shortening the Vanguard section, and will be using THAT as the "main hub" of the station, and the smaller "spheres" on the Franz Joseph station will actually be K-7 saucers on a surrounding ring structure.
 
That's cool. I wonder what the in-universe logic is behind having hose outriggers like that? Wouldn't the station be more defensible in a more compact arrangement? I think it looks cool, but I'd like to have a story behind it, I guess.

--Alex
 
Well this is a take on the Franz Joseph base, and that base had that outer ring with the smaller modules on it, so that feature is duplicated here.
 
right. But those had a purpose, they were starship docks. What is the point of these structures? I'm not saying they don't look cool, I'm just wondering why they're there...

--Alex
 
Perhaps the core "big" module is a spacedock or command-and-engineering structure, while the outer pods are living facilities. This would be a reverse arrangement relative to the original FJ design, but there are possibilities there...
 
Of course, the FJ starbase was rotating and had outward centrifugal "gravity," so the resemblance here (or in the 2009 movie's Starbase 1, which appears to be similarly inspired by FJ's design) is basically cosmetic.
 
Well, the thing with the FJ starbase is that it didn't represent "known" TOS design for stations... TOS had the K-7 station, and Masao's Vanguard station followed with that design motif... the saucer with the "sombrero top"... so this takes the basic orientation of the FJ design, but uses the established TOS look for stations in doing so.
 
Perhaps the most interesting derivative would be to enlarge the outer pods while eliminating the large inner "hub" module. Each pod in the ring could serve a different function. (One for command, another for civilian commerce, another for industry, etc.)
 
Why are you calling it a starship instead of a starbase?

I'm trying to figure out who in this thread had refereed to it as a starship rather than a starbase and then I figure you must have thought it was me as I seem to be the only one who used the word "starship" at all. But I was referring to the "starship docks" that were the outer six globes on the starbase's perimeter, whose function was to provide an enclosed, pressurized if needed, place to tie down (with cables, I should add) up to three starships per globe for a total of 18 starships docked in the station at any given moment.

Also the FJ starbase wouldn't have rotated for a centripetal gravity effect (though I'll concede that when FJ drew it he probably had something like that in mind). An equatorial cross section would show the outer decks as an enormous hexagon which would mean in a spin-gravity situation that "down" would only be experienced while standing in the middle of one of the open areas. The closer you would walk to the hexagon's points (where, I point out, all the major surface structures are located) you would be standing at more and more harrowing angles until you were nearest the point where "down" would feel like about 30 degrees away from perpendicular to the floor. That's a hell of a way to design your buildings. Also, if this were the case, the strength of the gravity effect would be felt most fully in those starship dock globes, which would mean that the ships would "fall" against the outer wall; or need to maintain a powered orbit inside the globe (which would seem to defeat the purpose of having an enclosed dock in the first place); or that the cables holding the ships in place are a lot stronger than I gave them credit for all these years. OTOH, the FJ cross section of the starship dock globe does call out "Work Cranes" which suggest the possibility of gravity being in place, but given the other problems with centripetal gravity simulation in this design, I'm willing to say these cranes are the inconsistency and say that the cranes are actually robot arms and not like conventional cable-pulls-something-up-and-lets-it-back-down cranes at all.


@Cmdr_Blop: I would argue that FJ's take on the Starbase was in line with TOS aesthetic. The K-7 station had a larger central piece with a prominent flattened sphere shape with smaller projections in a radially symmetrical pattern around that central core. By that description, both objects are certainly in that same school.

--Alex
 
The OP called the structure Starship Gemini and it's superimposed over the first Illustrator sketch.

Looks good, I too have a bit of a preference for the first Illustrator pass, but I may simply be prejudiced by the Space Mushroom design. Look forward to how this develops.
 
Starship Gemini is the name of the TOS-era fanfilm that this is being designed for... it is not the name of the station.
 
Also the FJ starbase wouldn't have rotated for a centripetal gravity effect (though I'll concede that when FJ drew it he probably had something like that in mind). An equatorial cross section would show the outer decks as an enormous hexagon which would mean in a spin-gravity situation that "down" would only be experienced while standing in the middle of one of the open areas. The closer you would walk to the hexagon's points (where, I point out, all the major surface structures are located) you would be standing at more and more harrowing angles until you were nearest the point where "down" would feel like about 30 degrees away from perpendicular to the floor. That's a hell of a way to design your buildings. Also, if this were the case, the strength of the gravity effect would be felt most fully in those starship dock globes, which would mean that the ships would "fall" against the outer wall; or need to maintain a powered orbit inside the globe (which would seem to defeat the purpose of having an enclosed dock in the first place); or that the cables holding the ships in place are a lot stronger than I gave them credit for all these years. OTOH, the FJ cross section of the starship dock globe does call out "Work Cranes" which suggest the possibility of gravity being in place, but given the other problems with centripetal gravity simulation in this design, I'm willing to say these cranes are the inconsistency and say that the cranes are actually robot arms and not like conventional cable-pulls-something-up-and-lets-it-back-down cranes at all.

This.

I also thought for a long time that the FJ Starbase One must have rotated for gravity, mostly due to the layout of those fields and lakes and such inside. But, Albertese here very deftly lays out the reasons why this can't be so.

Also, how fast would this thing have to spin to make one-g in those interior environment bays? And how fast would that have those globular docking bays moving at? Would you want to try and dock in that sort of situation?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top