Building the Mighty Mushroom - Spacedock
- Thread starter BolianAuthor
- Start date
^^Yep - you can get close but there isn't anything that locks it down (and probably never will be 
).
But we have lots of choices. We could use the TNG timeline into the TOS movies. Bozeman from "Cause and Effect" is from the year 2278 which locks down the uniform at least for the TNG timeline. And in "Relics" Kirk was alive when Scotty was lost on the Jenolan but in the movies ("Generations") Kirk is lost with Scotty present to the event. Presumably one of the timelines has the uniform change in 2278
Or if you want to tie in the real Voyager program and extrapolate a launch date of the fiction Voyager VI then it could be launched in 1977/78 (Voyager 1/2 = 1977) making TMP = 2277 or 78 (300 years since launch, according to Decker) and the uniform change happened right after TMP That would also shift the end of the 5-year mission to 2275 
Again, all speculation
). But we have lots of choices. We could use the TNG timeline into the TOS movies. Bozeman from "Cause and Effect" is from the year 2278 which locks down the uniform at least for the TNG timeline. And in "Relics" Kirk was alive when Scotty was lost on the Jenolan but in the movies ("Generations") Kirk is lost with Scotty present to the event. Presumably one of the timelines has the uniform change in 2278
Or if you want to tie in the real Voyager program and extrapolate a launch date of the fiction Voyager VI then it could be launched in 1977/78 (Voyager 1/2 = 1977) making TMP = 2277 or 78 (300 years since launch, according to Decker) and the uniform change happened right after TMP
That would also shift the end of the 5-year mission to 2275 Again, all speculation
Presumably one of the timelines has the uniform change in 2278
Or presumably at least one starship does.
We might speculate that the red jackets were first tried out on some frontline starships before being adopted by Earth. Or that Earth briefly tried out the pajamas while the rest of the Fleet converted directly to the red jackets (to be worn over what looks very much like the color-coded TOS pullovers and classic black pants)...
Timo Saloniemi
Presumably one of the timelines has the uniform change in 2278
Or presumably at least one starship does.
We might speculate that the red jackets were first tried out on some frontline starships before being adopted by Earth. Or that Earth briefly tried out the pajamas while the rest of the Fleet converted directly to the red jackets (to be worn over what looks very much like the color-coded TOS pullovers and classic black pants)...
Timo Saloniemi
And we've seen periods where different services in Starfleet use a variation of the uniform. Most notably DS9 while TNG was still wearing their primary uniforms.
Those unitards in TMP were also on the long range sensor station, so that may suggest that it was an unfortunate all around uniform distribution with men showing their packages... ugh.
Let's face it, I guess the military of any era is keen on coming up with stupid ideas for their personnel.
Funny though- I liked the jackets they wore on VGer. Reminded my of the pilot episode away team jackets in TOS.
I can hear it now... It's 2260 and the think tank is, er, thinking. "We need to build something really really huge to show off our might. It'll be a city in space. Not just one, but dozens over time over every major space lane. But our people need a comfort change too. Let's help them mellow out with some pastel coloured unitards. It'll be so comfortable that it will be the true symbol of our utopian society... It'll take about 10 years to convince Starfleet to make the change though. It's going to be a long 10 years..."
Might also offer yard crews protection from solar flares and cosmic radiation spikes and shit like that. Or did someone already cover that?
I think it's worth noting that compared to building a starship, this station, even with its immense size, should have been a walk in the park. The construction standards for a space station would be much less problematic than those of a starship which has to maintain structural integrity at warp speeds. The station just has to sit there and not collapse.
While I don't recall seeing it occur on screen, we can safely assume a lot of the construction would be automated. Thousands of robots buzzing around 24/7 could probably help get the job done in an acceptable time frame.
Being as how we've only seen the interior of the spaceDOCK proper (and that of a single adjacent viewing lounge), it might for all we know have come into being like an Earthly city: that is to say, slowly and in stages. Starfleet (or for that matter a commercial concern) might have built the next-to-lowermost cylinder as a laboratory/hotel/housing complex shortly after advent of artificial gravity technology, and the remainder of the 'dock been added over time.
As to the refit's sitting bare in space in a drydock, not far from a "space office" readily buildible (sans gravity) by contemporary technology, bear in mind its untested, newly designed engines. Might not such a prototype be routinely built outside Spacedock (as in fact is seen in every other case of a new class of starship), harmless in event of disaster, operations overseen by a safely distant worksite office?
As to the refit's sitting bare in space in a drydock, not far from a "space office" readily buildible (sans gravity) by contemporary technology, bear in mind its untested, newly designed engines. Might not such a prototype be routinely built outside Spacedock (as in fact is seen in every other case of a new class of starship), harmless in event of disaster, operations overseen by a safely distant worksite office?
Well most aircraft carriers and other large ships are first built in a drydock in sections. When the hull is completed, it is launched out of drydock and moved to a fitting-out dock or pier where it is completed. I could see Starfleet building the majority of the ship in an indoors spacedock with complete control over the environment (gravity and air). Once the hull is completed and buttoned up (airtight) and painted it's moved to the outside dock that we see for completion. Especially fuel loading and testing of the primary and secondary power systems. In case something goes BOOM.
I don't mind in STXI that the ship was built on Earth. I just mind the it was built outside. They could have done a much bigger version of the shuttle hangar.
I don't mind in STXI that the ship was built on Earth. I just mind the it was built outside. They could have done a much bigger version of the shuttle hangar.
Airplanes, rockets, space probes and rockets are built in hangars and factory halls, too. Save from wind and weather. So why wouldn't anyone build starships save from radiation, solar flares, meteorites, extreme temperature differences, etc...?
I always thought that one of the orbital "dry dock" frames main purposes was to provide a shield against just those things you've mentioned, while the starship is being built or serviced and has it's own shields down.
The frame has to have a greater importance than just providing lights.
I expect it's not just a good frame for lights. The frame also, no doubt, serves as a place to hook up mechanical arms and such to work on the ship. We see such details in the drydocks shown in Enterprise. I don't think relying so heavily on forcefields during construction would be very cost effective. It seems that shields are used in Trek only when they are really needed. I'm pretty sure the point of the drydock frame is basically the equivalent of scaffolding on any building project.
--Alex
--Alex
Well, I'm glad at least someone thought about the scale issue between the SD and E-D. I guess budget trumped reason once again. 
IIRC, that was one thing Andrew Probert really disliked about the use of the Spacedock model in TNG. It seems huge enough as it is for a ship of the Excelsior or movie era, and to expect that same structure to be able to squeeze in a ship nearly twice the size with no problems just makes it even more silly. Isn't scale fun? 
Heh...Unfortunately, it's something that has plagued Trek through most of its modern run (80's and beyond, ever since ILM and Image-G was brought on board) to varying degrees, the most glaring of which was the incredible size-changing Klingon Bird of Prey. That one was SO bad that they had to come up with a whole new canonical class name for the bigger ships (K'Vort vs B'Rel).
That's why I prefer the way FASA handled the design, having no less than five distinct variants and the largest of them only being about 180m long. The design was never intended to be a big ship even though the Klingons decided to scale up the original scout version into cruiser and frigate sizes.
Transformers runs into it all the time, even more with the sloppy animation that tended to plague the original cartoon.
Transformers runs into it all the time, even more with the sloppy animation that tended to plague the original cartoon.
...With B'Rel being the big ones, and K'Vort the smaller ones.
That is, in "Yesterday's Enterprise" the big ones have the latter name. But that's in an alternate universe. And "Yesterday's Enterprise" big BoP footage then gets reused in "Rascals", where we learn that these big ships are actually of the B'Rel class.
I don't really think the scaling thing is a big problem in the BoP case. Remember that these ships have very prominent wings, and that a couple of sizes of them have been shown operating in atmospheres or landing on planets. It's quite plausible that form dictates function, and that all Klingon ships intended for operations in atmospheres look more or less alike. That's certainly true of, say, all ships intended to offload tanks to beaches in amphibious assault today: the size can vary considerably, from tiny boats to ocean lines like Russia's Ivan Rogov, but the distinct shape remains. The same with aircraft carriers.
We only need to take this one step further and say that the Klingons saw no real reason for having even a little bit of variation in the exteriors of their variously sized ships. Indeed, variation might be a bad idea when one considers that shape directly affects aerodynamics. And aerodynamics in turn won't change much if the ship's shape increases by one order of magnitude.
The photographic evidence easily allows us to reduce the range of BoP sizes to three, and a little bit of squinting allows for just two. Perhaps residual effects from cloaking device use explain part of it, too?
Whether the Mushrooms come in two sizes is less debatable. We've never seen a truly continuous shot of a Galaxy flying into one of those things, so theoretically we could argue that the stations and their doors are still of the ST3 size in the TNG era, they just feature additional (and well-camouflaged) sections that allow them to be opened much wider than originally. All shots of a Galaxy actually gliding through a Mushroom door are from the inside, possibly allowing for a bigger door than the exterior views would suggest. But hard math gets in the way after that point, because we have an idea of the size of the ST3 station innards from comparisons with well-known starships, and that idea won't allow a Galaxy to be parked inside even if one gets the ship through the "enlarged" doors...
But once again, one shape might serve in various sizes, just like one shape is good enough for various sizes of office buildings today. Happily, the portholes on the Mushroom are relatively indistinct and don't have to be taken as indicating any specific deck count or deck height or anything.
Timo Saloniemi
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
Perhaps half the doors on the later Spacedocks were larger for the Galaxy/Nedula designs and the other half were the TSFS size for all the Excelcior/Miranda types that were still around. Doors 1 & 3 are larger than doors 2 & 4. A similar situation to how airports have are having to reconfigure their boarding gates to handle the A380's.
Having doors about twice as wide and higher by a half ought to solve the entry problem to ST3 Spacedock. After that, the ship ought to have enough elbow room for maneuvering to a mooring position, and perhaps even turning around (even if the ship in "11001001" for some reason exits the much larger starbase at reverse), as evidenced by this view from ST3:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tsfshd/tsfshd0595.jpg
Still, I don't think we have a pressing reason for thinking that the ST3 Spacedock should be capable of accommodating a Galaxy - or a Nebula, despite "Non Sequitur". OTOH, we do have pressing visual reasons for thinking that the "11001001" starbase truly is much bigger than the ST3 Spacedock:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tsfshd/tsfshd0155.jpg
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x16/oneone006.jpg
If we assumed here that the E-nil were closer to the camera than the E-D or the doors (and performed a funny last-minute dogleg maneuver to align herself with the doors after the camera turned away), things might still work out. But other scenes confirm that the E-nil only barely fits through those very same doors, defying that line of argument.
So yes, Spacedock might accommodate a Galaxy (which never saw happen) through mods (which we never witnessed), but the TNG starbases would still be bigger.
Timo Saloniemi
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tsfshd/tsfshd0595.jpg
Still, I don't think we have a pressing reason for thinking that the ST3 Spacedock should be capable of accommodating a Galaxy - or a Nebula, despite "Non Sequitur". OTOH, we do have pressing visual reasons for thinking that the "11001001" starbase truly is much bigger than the ST3 Spacedock:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tsfshd/tsfshd0155.jpg
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s1/1x16/oneone006.jpg
If we assumed here that the E-nil were closer to the camera than the E-D or the doors (and performed a funny last-minute dogleg maneuver to align herself with the doors after the camera turned away), things might still work out. But other scenes confirm that the E-nil only barely fits through those very same doors, defying that line of argument.
So yes, Spacedock might accommodate a Galaxy (which never saw happen) through mods (which we never witnessed), but the TNG starbases would still be bigger.
Timo Saloniemi
