Getting the Enterprise into space - with vids!

[Saquist]

1) Canonically speaking, we know humans have discovered a means to artificially control the weather by the 24th century. It is less certain whether this technology exists--or is reliable--in the 23rd; ymmv.

weather Yes, temperature no....

2) The variation between day and night on Earth is about 30 degrees farenheit at most, and there is are no micrometeors or high-levels of ionizing radiation to contend with. The most an Earthbound construction site would have to deal with--especially in a place like Iowa--is a 30mph wind and an occasional rainstorm.

30 degress is far too much because the metals we use will expand by as much a quarter of an inch total for both sides and that's with heat or the contraction of cold which would be a serious problem during the winter. This would really screw up all the tolerances during construction and then might lead to on the spur fabrications during assembly of major components.

That is a physical impossibility.

Show me...

No one has ever died while base jumping off the Sears Tower either. That doesn't mean parachuting off of a skyscraper is safer than using the elevator.

Base jumping is safer than surfing...

I'm pretty sure you mean YOU would not agree with me. Let the many speak for themselves.

You have no idea what I mean.
I've worked with Engineers. We deployed LIVE tsunami detection systems into oceanographic array of depths of 3000 feet for Oman. It's the only other Live system besides Japan. Currently negotiating with the Indonesian governments for the same system. We used ROV's and ships (THE ECLIPSE) to position these arrays on the ocean floor and create a network of cable structures and temperature DEFINITELY plays a part in the materials we use (not to mention the corrosive nature of sea water). The President of the company worked for NOAA and while they're republican and endorse NASA as a job employment agency they know the problems of manufacturing to exact standards is difficult. Temperature is your number one enemy. I've been handed the tolerance annotations for temperature installation. I know, not because that's my field but because as a drafter I draw what people tell me draw, I note what the engineers tell to note for manufacturing.

When is the last time there was an Earthquake in Iowa?

You are so funny...
You really don't know your history do you? I don't mean to be condescending but if you only knew...because you clearly don't. Do you really want ME to be the one to tell you because you never listen to me anyway...

And orbital facilities are immune to orbital bombardment?

Don't be sad...
You can shield an orbital facility.
You knew that, you just want me to say it so you can exercise that trifling muscle...

 

[Pauln6]

However, the smooth ascent depicted on the second vid would only be possible using some kind if gravity negation ability, which I don't think the Federation has does it?

Don't they? They obviously have the technology to induce artificial gravity throughout the entire structure of their ship, they possess tractor beam technology that allows ships to impart gravity-like motion on distant objects. 23rd and 24th century shuttlecraft are fully VTOL capable, despite lacking any big obvious thrust assemblies that would make this possible. So it not antigravs, then some incredibly compact thruster technology.

And even barring that, a couple of specialized tugs with tractor beams and high-thrust engines would be more than up to the task.

Tractor beams are just tow ropes made of energy so I suppose that a large number of shuttles could indeed tow the ship into orbit but we have to remember that TOS shuttles were not shown to be the impressive multi-purpose vessels we see in TNG.

OTOH, we have seen spacedock tug craft operating in Earth's atmosphere from time to time, so they would be more than up to the job.

However, none of this explains why you would build the ship on Earth with its saucer section in place. These are separate parts of the ship that are simply coupled together with mooring clamps and energy linkages.

Only if you assume the saucer section really IS capable of separating. This was never demonstrated in TOS and is unlikely to be true of the NuEnterprise, primarily because the utility of saucer separation is something that TNG alone is known to play with and eventually abandoned anyway.

I can only base my observations on the Enterprise refit blueprints, since they are the only ones I've studied in any detail. My understanding is that the tractor/deflector beam does indeed involve gravitions but it is emitted forwards from the deflector dish and so wouldn't be much use for landing and take-off. To their credit, the designers were very specific on the TMP blueprints, giving the writers clear material upon which to base the stories.

That's not a bar to a land-based station possessing a graviton emitter to blast a ship into space but again, I'd question if that's the best method of preparing a ship for space flight! Towing by tug would be the most sensible alternative.

Apparently the saucer was capable of separation in TOS. It's shown clearly on the refit plans and Kirk mentions it once in TOS, I think. However, we are only assuming that the saucer itself was designed to land because they put landing struts on the plans. I think the hydrogen thrusters were supposed to be the means of propulsion used in spacedock and atmospheres.

 

[spooky spice]

QR

I always thought they built bits of the ship on Earth, then took them into orbit and fitted them together to build the ship...

 

[Pauln6]

QR

I always thought they built bits of the ship on Earth, then took them into orbit and fitted them together to build the ship...

That would be the most logical, consistent, and most likely scenario. The debate only arises because JJ wanted Kirk to ride past the fully-constructed shell of the Enterprise on his motorbike. Logic went out the window in favour of the 'cool' visual. Based on the flyby scene in TMP, it would have been just as cool if he'd flown by in a shuttle but for some reason they wanted the bar fight and shipbuilding to take place in Iowa (Kirk's hometown). Like many things in the movie it was a hamfisted way to keep the story bobbing along for the sake of expediency. If Spock Prime is to be believed, the Universe encouraged Starfleet to change its shipbuilding plans in order to restore Kirk to greatness. He's THAT important to the Universe who, clearly, is a woman.

 

[Saquist]

I don't think it would have been as "kewl" as looking out the window of a shuttle even TMP made a full height window for the scene. They should have had him walking on it and then a pull back from him to the whole ship.

I think they really wasted the Apollo program association for the teasers and doing nothing like that for the actual movie...these types of themes would have meant alot to the older generation that remembers the moon landings.

But I'm thankful they didn't do a Enterprise montage out of the Abramsprise. It's not something I want to look at with music overlay.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

30 degress is far too much

Since when? We've been building naval vessels out of metal for a hundred and fifty years and that has never been a problem. It isn't a problem for spacecraft either, so why would it be a problem for starships?

But if, according to you, a 30 degree variation is too much, how about that 250 degree variation in orbital space?

Show me...

Show you what? That's basic orbital mechanics: an object in orbit must follow an elliptical path around the local system's barycenter, and on Earth--where the barycenter is near the core--that means any orbiting object must circle the Earth at orbital velocities.

It's possible to arrange an orbit that never crosses into the night side (a polar orbit inclined such that it that always follows the terminator, for example) in which case the orbiter would be in constant sunlight. But an orbit that never leaves the night side is physically impossible.

Base jumping is safer than surfing...

According to who?

When is the last time there was an Earthquake in Iowa?

You are so funny...
You really don't know your history do you? I don't mean to be condescending but if you only knew...because you clearly don't. Do you really want ME to be the one to tell you because you never listen to me anyway...

I would listen if you were able to tell me with a straight face that Iowa experiences frequent Earthquakes and therefore it is ill advised to put a shipyard there. I would, of course, ask for a little bit of evidence to back that up.

And orbital facilities are immune to orbital bombardment?

Don't be sad...
You can shield an orbital facility.

You can shield a ground facility too. More importantly, you can more easily DEFEND a ground facility since attacking ships have to pass over the facility in order to attack it, which gives them a limited attack axis and a limited window in which to strike. Not so for a co-orbiting platform, where the attacking vessels can assume a matching orbit and sit there and pound the hell out of it and the defenders until they surrender or die.

 

[spooky spice]

That would be the most logical, consistent, and most likely scenario. The debate only arises because JJ wanted Kirk to ride past the fully-constructed shell of the Enterprise on his motorbike.

I need to go to SpecSavers, I never noticed that bit in the movie!

 

[Saquist]

30 degress is far too much

Since when? We've been building naval vessels out of metal for a hundred and fifty years and that has never been a problem. It isn't a problem for spacecraft either, so why would it be a problem for starships?

Trifling.
No one is building boats in space.

Show you what?

(so dense)
Show me proof.

According to who?

According to you.

I would listen if you were able to tell me with a straight face that Iowa experiences frequent Earthquakes and therefore it is ill advised to put a shipyard there. I would, of course, ask for a little bit of evidence to back that up.

Look it up yourself. You clearly had to look sun synchronous orbits just to explain yourself and you provided zero proof that your so called "basics" of orbital mechanics prevent a perpetual dark side orbit.

You can shield a ground facility too.

REALLY?!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder why they didn' do that for say....Star Fleet command.

More importantly, you can more easily DEFEND a ground facility since attacking ships have to pass over the facility in order to attack it, which gives them a limited attack axis and a limited window in which to strike.

High Density:
No it doesn't. That's all wrong.

 

[M'Sharak]

That would be the most logical, consistent, and most likely scenario. The debate only arises because JJ wanted Kirk to ride past the fully-constructed shell of the Enterprise on his motorbike.

I need to go to SpecSavers, I never noticed that bit in the movie!

That bit happened at night. Easier to make out in daylight the next morning, but then you only glimpse pieces of it instead of the whole ship.

I would listen if you were able to tell me with a straight face that Iowa experiences frequent Earthquakes and therefore it is ill advised to put a shipyard there. I would, of course, ask for a little bit of evidence to back that up.

Frequent wouldn't be quite the right word, but neither is it exactly a trivial concern.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/iowa/history.php
Still, you'd think there'd be a way.

 

[Pauln6]

You can shield a ground facility too. More importantly, you can more easily DEFEND a ground facility since attacking ships have to pass over the facility in order to attack it, which gives them a limited attack axis and a limited window in which to strike. Not so for a co-orbiting platform, where the attacking vessels can assume a matching orbit and sit there and pound the hell out of it and the defenders until they surrender or die.

Yup - that's why the Vulcans were able to defend their world while taking out Nero's drilling platform... oh... wait...

 

[Saquist]

That would be the most logical, consistent, and most likely scenario. The debate only arises because JJ wanted Kirk to ride past the fully-constructed shell of the Enterprise on his motorbike.

I need to go to SpecSavers, I never noticed that bit in the movie!

That bit happened at night. Easier to make out in daylight the next morning, but then you only glimpse pieces of it instead of the whole ship.

I would listen if you were able to tell me with a straight face that Iowa experiences frequent Earthquakes and therefore it is ill advised to put a shipyard there. I would, of course, ask for a little bit of evidence to back that up.

Frequent wouldn't be quite the right word, but neither is it exactly a trivial concern.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/iowa/history.php
Still, you'd think there'd be a way.

Thank you
...and considering their cyclic nature at about the 23rd century would about time for another...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Show me proof.

You want proof that an object in orbit will actually orbit the planet instead of just floating around in the night side?

You're the one who brought it up. Explain why you think it IS possible and I might have something for you.

According to you.

When did I ever mention surfing? What the hell are you talking about?

Look it up yourself. You clearly had to look sun synchronous orbits just to explain yourself and you provided zero proof that your so called "basics" of orbital mechanics prevent a perpetual dark side orbit.

A sun-synchronous orbit is by no means "locked on the dark side" of the Earth. The L2 Lagrange point ALMOST fits that criteria, but its actual distance is well beyond the Earth's umbra and is therefore still in sunlight.

You can shield a ground facility too.

REALLY?!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder why they didn' do that for say....Star Fleet command.

How do you know they didn't?

More importantly, you can more easily DEFEND a ground facility since attacking ships have to pass over the facility in order to attack it, which gives them a limited attack axis and a limited window in which to strike.

Everything you know is wrong.
Black is white, up is down and short is long.
And everything that you thought
was just so important doesn't matter

Everything you know is wrong.
Just forget the words and sing along
All you need to understand is
Everything you know is wrong.

I don't feel like wasting any more time indulging your silliness, saquist.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That would be the most logical, consistent, and most likely scenario. The debate only arises because JJ wanted Kirk to ride past the fully-constructed shell of the Enterprise on his motorbike.

I need to go to SpecSavers, I never noticed that bit in the movie!

That bit happened at night. Easier to make out in daylight the next morning, but then you only glimpse pieces of it instead of the whole ship.

I would listen if you were able to tell me with a straight face that Iowa experiences frequent Earthquakes and therefore it is ill advised to put a shipyard there. I would, of course, ask for a little bit of evidence to back that up.

Frequent wouldn't be quite the right word, but neither is it exactly a trivial concern.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/iowa/history.php
Still, you'd think there'd be a way.

That's kinda what I mean. Two tremors every hundred years isn't statistically significant, or particularly hard to mitigate for the fairly low intensity of midwest seismic activity (similar reports say we've had at least four major Earthquakes in Chicago in the last twenty years; I slept through three of them and mistook the fourth for a passing truck).

 

[UFO]

In my view the main reason spaceships will be built in space is because in 200 years most heavy manufacturing is likely to be done there. When you consider probable environmental controls on Earth and the abundance of both raw materials and free energy in space (the sun), it just makes sense. Apparently there are even some things you can make in zero-G that can’t be made in a gravity field. Then, as mentioned, it’s easier to move things in space though you still have inertia to worry about.

Space is really a less-than-ideal environment for delicate engineering tasks, unless you're building ships in a gigantic zero gravity clean-room.

They could do that! Well, assuming its the best way of building large structures in space, it is certainly not a problem. According to Dandrige M Cole and Donald W Cox in "Islands in Space", building something like that, otherwise known as a hollow planetoid, is certainly possible. Not sure it would need to be a "clean-room", but it would certainly be a shirtsleeve environment.

First you construct a large parabolic mirror, then pick a nickel-iron planetoid, say a mile in diameter by two long. Bore a hole down the long axis and fill it with tanks of water then plug the ends. Spin the planetoid slowly while bathing it in concentrated (focused) sunlight. Slowly it will melt and when it melts to the centre it will blow up like balloon some ten miles in diameter and twenty long!

There are a number of uses for such an object as you can imagine (if you can’t, please Google "O’Neil Colonies"), but you could certainly use it to build Starships, hundreds at a time if necessary. We build spacecraft on Earth now because A) We need most of them to get into space and/or B) We can’t build them in space at the moment. But why would you want to build them on Earth if you had a choice? It seems more likely space manufacturing will be supplying Earth with large industrial products than visa versa.

 

[Pauln6]

There is also enough background information to indicate that the writers and designers felt that the Enterprise was not designed to land on planets (in the real world it may only have been due to budgetary constraints but nevertheless). This was partly why transporters and shuttles were introduced. In that light, building the ship on the ground does seem to make less sense but it is by no means conclusive. The previous assumption was that the ships were built in space because that was a cool idea. JJ wanted a cool visual instead. Cool visual trumped cool idea. That wasn't the only time that happened in the movie and it wont be the last time it happens in the future!

 

[Saquist]

Show me proof.

You want proof that an object in orbit will actually orbit the planet instead of just floating around in the night side?

Prove impossible.

You're the one who brought it up. Explain why you think it IS possible and I might have something for you.

Once again...I'm a drafter.
Part of the awesomeness of CAD is it's 3D components so you're talking to some one who has actually ALREADY mapped semi-major and semi minor axis, eccentricity and inclination of orbits around the sun in a true to form solar system model just find out how big the solar system was compared to a lightyear. So as long as the craft is in LEO and in a polar orbit following the terminator and orbiting in the direction of Earth's rotation and travel around the shun then it's more than possible. You've already looked up sun synchronous orbits. You know from the definition they are capable of maintaining an orbit that keeps shadow (or time a) pretty much the same. If you can do it on the light side you can do it on the night side. All that crap you said spouted about barycenter proves you don't know how low orbits can be nor the degree of eccentricity that's close to 1 that some bodies orbit at. Your mouth just wrote a check for impossible and your head can't cash it.

You do this alot.

When did I ever mention surfing? What the hell are you talking about?

I don't know. When did I ever mention Base Jumpting. What the hell were you talking about?
(sad face)

How do you know they didn't?

How do I know they didn't do what?

I don't feel like wasting any more time indulging your silliness, saquist.

It's about time....
Wait a minute is that your new stage voice, it sounds like you're gargling marbles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seBpXt8_6xs

 

[Pauln6]

Surely a vessel in orbit is normally just using the natural gravity of the planet to maintain a safe distance. There's no reason why a vessel couldn't use its own power to adjust its position to avoid exposure to the sun or maintain a consistent position in relation to the sun.

 

[UFO]

So as long as the craft is in LEO and in a polar orbit following the terminator and orbiting in the direction of Earth's rotation and travel around the sun then it's [remaining in the Earth's shadow] more than possible.

That's seems like a nice idea, but I don't think it’s advantageous. In fact to get free energy it would be better to have our manufacturing facility/shipyard in constant sunlight. We could use a variety of shading/heating schemes to keep all or any particular part of it at a fairly constant temperature.

LEOs are an option, however an orbit around the Earth's L4 or L5 Lagrange points (located 60 degrees ahead and behind the orbit of the moon at the same distance from the Earth) could be more suitable, as could other locations in the solar system if they are closer to raw materials.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Surely a vessel in orbit is normally just using the natural gravity of the planet to maintain a safe distance. There's no reason why a vessel couldn't use its own power to adjust its position to avoid exposure to the sun or maintain a consistent position in relation to the sun.

A VESSEL, sure. But not a space station or an orbital construction yard that is going to have all kinds of other objects--construction pods, shuttles, workers in space suits--floating around it all the time.

Anyway, the specific reason an orbital path cannot be made to ONLY hang on the night side (at least where Earth is concerned) is because the Earth-Moon system's barycenter lies very close to the Earth's core. A polar orbit could be arranged to put you on a path that is always directly over the terminator, with the result that you would always be in direct sunlight at all times with the sun several degrees above a constant horizon. You could, at that point, put up a large shield or mirror directly facing the sun, but if you're going to do that anyway you might as well be in an equatorial orbit that's easier to access from the ground.

Of course if you had a 100 or so kilometers of atmosphere over your head you wouldn't have to worry about the sun, or radiation, or micrometeorites. It would also have some far less dangerous failure modes if in the event of an industrial accident.

So as long as the craft is in LEO and in a polar orbit following the terminator and orbiting in the direction of Earth's rotation and travel around the sun then it's [remaining in the Earth's shadow] more than possible.

That's seems like a nice idea, but I don't think it’s advantageous. In fact to get free energy it would be better to have our manufacturing facility/shipyard in constant sunlight.

On a polar orbit following the terminator it WOULD be in constant sunlight. The only way that sort of orbit would ever pass behind the Earth's shadow is if it has a perigee BELOW the surface of the planet (i.e. if it plows into the ground and buries itself at 10km/s).

LEOs are an option, however an orbit around the Earth's L4 or L5 Lagrange points (located 60 degrees ahead and behind the orbit of the moon at the same distance from the Earth) could be more suitable, as could other locations in the solar system if they are closer to raw materials.

But then you've got to ask yourself why starship construction yards are in Low Earth Orbit instead of, say, on the surface of the moon or Ceres or Vesta. Or for that matter, in a facility at Jupiter Station, close to the geological nuthouse that is Io and the Jupiter Trojans.

The only thing that comes to mind is that the shipyards must be located for geographic convenience and that Starfleet prefers to move the resources from the asteroids over to the shipyards/factories, not the other way around. If there's no specific need for those facilities to be in orbit, then you might as well put them in some out-of-the-way place in the countryside just a short commute from where the construction workers actually live.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you can do it on the light side you can do it on the night side.

You can't do it on the night side because the Earth's shadow does not extend that far to the Sun-Earth L2 point; you would still be in sunlight even at that position.

All that crap you said spouted about barycenter proves you don't know how low orbits can be

An orbit can only be as low as the surface of a planet, and no lower (or else it isn't an orbit, but a ballistic trajectory). The eccentricity of the orbit is a non-issue here since one foci of the ellipse is ALWAYS the barycenter. Because the primary ALSO revolves around the barycenter, no matter how you calculate it the orbit will always pass into the dayside; the only way to avoid this is to move the barycenter ABOVE the surface of the primary and then place the orbiter into an elliptical orbit around the barycenter in 1:1 orbital resonance with the primary such that it always reaches apsis when the primary is closest to the sun and always reaches apopsis when the primary is furthest from the sun. This is called "Orbital tag," the result is that the two bodies seem to be constantly chasing each other around the barycenter so that the larger one chases the smaller one, then they both change directions and the smaller chases the larger one. This can work even if the larger object is in a completely circular orbit.

FYI, that was one of my challenge questions in sophomore astrophysics. The question was NOT about whether or not such an orbit was possible in the Earth system--it plainly isn't, because those conditions don't exist here--but it's worth pointing out that CAD is probably not the best tool to model this sort of thing.