It contained elements of LOTR, but was far from a direct translation into space opera. There were far more non-humanoid aliens, for one thing, as well as rotating sections for artificial gravity, no teleportation, no reactionless drives, more realistic weapons and warfare, etc...
No more than on the ground, it simply poses a different set of challenges. On the ground the ship must be supported since its shape doesn't lend itself to being very strong, even while fully constructed. There's also a danger of workers and tools falling, and inclimate weather destroying the ship before work can be completed.
Space would suck without a spacesuit or shuttle of some kind, but since they'd have those...
Ah yes, this kernel of logic.
Let's see, in water there are currents, the water itself has a higher density than air, making it more difficult to move objects through it, and the water itself has an oxidizing effect on metal. We also don't have to launch ships or submarines into space, and launching them is just as easy as sliding them into the water that is directly adjacent to where they are built. In space, there is no resistance to movement from any fluid, there is no oxidizing agent, and it would probably be pretty awkward to launch a fully constructed starship from the ground when it'd be much easier to just do it in space. No, but we're building a space station in orbit.
We also have no infrastructure present in orbit that would be needed to build a ship in orbit, we just have the cranes on the space shuttle and the space station, which are kind of busy trying to finish up the space station.
You could do that, because it'd be easier to get those into orbit from the ground. On the other hand, if you had a giant ... spacedock ... that you could seal off from space and pressurize ... you could even build the components in space too.
Working in space sucks even with a space suit. Ask an astronaut.
No we're not. We're assembling it in orbit from sections built on the ground. Ask an STS crew to build even one of those sections in orbit and they'd tell you exactly where you could shove a booster rocket.
A space station does not make space into a friendly working environment. Just slightly better.
You're getting your terminology wrong. A drydock would be sealed and pressurized. A spacedock would be open to space. We've never seen a repair or construction job take place in a sealed drydock. There is no precidence for it in all of Trek. Building on the ground, however, at least in large sections, DOES have precidence.On the other hand, if you had a giant ... spacedock ... that you could seal off from space and pressurize ... you could even build the components in space too.
I find it easier to believe that starships are mostly built where they can be most easily worked on by the most people, yes. Building and assembling everything from the circuits to the deck plates in a vacuum, in a space suit, in free fall, is insane.
It might have been - though there was nothing to prove it. If it were I'd wonder why the lounges needed windows, why we never saw ship assembly there, why it was called a "spacedock", and why their "drydocks" were obviously open to space.
*shrug* Why do you drive on a parkway but park on a driveway?
This goes a bit beyond terminology. Why would you build a starship in a vacuum when you can do it much more safely in a pressurized drydock?
That's why I think it was built in a pressurized drydock, or on Earth. TMP's open-to-space drydock was probably a parking lot for system testing, fueling, and as a "launch pad" away from earth, etc.
Maybe, but we've seen a lot more open-to-space ship construction/refitting/repair than just in TMP.
Yes, it's a lot of work, so? It's easier than trying to launch a ship the size and shape of a starship from the ground, and easier than trying to build it there too, for that matter.
You're being unnecessarily anal, and yet still fail to prove any kind of point.
By that logic, neither would a ship, and going into space is simply too dangerous for us to attempt at all. You do realize this is a show about exploring space, right?
And you're being anal again.
It might irritate you, but that isn't how it's been established in Trek.
No, it's only been talked about.
Ah yes, one blurry image on a small computer readout. We've also seen the skeletal from of a Galaxy class starship being skinned out in orbit of Mars, and with a much better view than a small computer screen that was in an alternate universe anyway.
They can travel faster than light, convert people from matter to energy and back again, but somehow building a ship that would be ungainly on the surface is somehow more believable?
How exactly, especially since I'm not talking about assembling everything from the circuits to the deck plates in a vacuum?
Looked that book up on Google Book Search. Are you sure you are reading it correctly?
Doesn't mean it's the correct information, though. It is important to check it.... at least as an exercise to learn about orbital parameters.
Okay. I don't really care so much about terminology as I do function. WHY in the vast weirdness of space would you do a major construction job in a vacuum when you could do it on a planet's surface or in an otherwise pressurized environment?
So?
not really.
That makes no sense.
It's being anal because that's not actually how they're referred to on the show.
Less material to build and easier to move assemblies into and around without having to worry about depressurizing and repressurizing. That's my theory anyway.
With airlocks and transporters they wouldn't have to depressurize and repressurize much, if at all. And in a vacuum you'd have a whole other set of problems - like working in spacesuits for months on end, and death.
