Getting the Enterprise into space - with vids!

[Saquist]

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.

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.

Alpha I owe you an apology I just ran it through the CAD simulator and the Dark Side Orbit as described isn't possible. You were definitely correct.

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.

No, I couldn't even get the Lunar orbit to work for dark side orbits. So the best thing to do is to simply make Sun shields for the shipyards.

 

[UFO]

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).

Well, I have to admit that thinking about it further, I can’t see how it could be kept in shadow all the time, but as I said, I don’t think its a good idea anyway. We would have to use a fair bit of power to keep our shipyard warm when the sun would otherwise do the job for free. Excess radiation could be deflected.

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.

Actually I don’t have to ask myself that since as you can tell, LEO isn't my preferred option.

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.

The construction workers, along with much if not most of the solar system’s population, would actually live in space. As I implied previously, anti pollution measures along with the connivance and advantages of zero-G construction would have forced most heavy industry off planet decades ago. The process of industrialising space would have started in our near future due to the need to build solar power satellites without having to incur the massive cost of lifting everything from Earth. And of course, as you say, the workers would need somewhere to live plus accommodation for their families … . Didn’t I mention O’Neil colonies? Who would want to live anywhere else? I mean Earth's OK for a holiday now and then but ... .

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.

Radiation? A layer of lunar soil and rock solves that problem and micrometeorites don’t seem to be a issue for Federation technology either. In space you can keep your population centres further away form any potential accidents and still get to work faster if need be. That 100km of atmosphere also heavily reduces the energy available from the sun.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The construction workers, along with much if not most of the solar system’s population, would actually live in space.

Why? Construction workers for naval shipyards don't live at sea. Even Kirk, who spends more time in space than any of the construction workers, has an apartment in San Francisco and a house in the country. It doesn't seem that a whole lot of people actually LIVE in space, but quite a few of them WORK there.

Naturally, by the 23rd century it is entirely possible that orbital habitation like the TMP office complex would be common ocurrences. But just because a thing is possible doesn't make it desirable. And what, other than coolness factor, is desirable about living in an orbital complex?

As I implied previously, anti pollution measures along with the connivance and advantages of zero-G construction would have forced most heavy industry off planet decades ago.

And resulted in a very different (and potentially more dangerous) form of pollution with the precipitous buildup of space debris. We at least know that Star Trek is experienced in cleaning up environmental catastrophes; a Kessler Syndrome is a whole different ballgame, and even in the age of forcefields and STI fields, it's something prudent to avoid.

The process of industrialising space would have started in our near future due to the need to build solar power satellites without having to incur the massive cost of lifting everything from Earth...

IF the Star Trek universe branched off of a Ben Bova novel, sure. But it didn't: humanity discovered warp drive in the middle of the post-atomic horror and learned to meet its energy needs with fusion reactors. The Vulcans taught them how to clean up their environment and how to more efficiently develop food and medicines to take care of everyone. By the time Earth was in a position to move its core industries off planet, it no longer NEEDED to.

We at least know that mining and energy exploration--the two primary sources of pollution in modern times--have been moved elsewhere, if only because the resources those industries use are not as plentiful on Earth as they are elsewhere. But you notice in TOS and TNG that even when those mining operations are not on Earth, they are invariably on some planet or another, NOT in orbit thereof.

Didn’t I mention O’Neil colonies?

Another thing that doesn't exist in Star Trek, and wouldn't really need to. When you have complete mastery of artificial gravity your O'Neil colony becomes a giant mushroom-shaped spaceport.

Who would want to live anywhere else?

People like, for example, the VAST MAJORITY of the human race that doesn't want to have to relocate from their home town to an orbiting sardine can just to hold a job that doesn't technically pay them anything?

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.

Radiation? A layer of lunar soil and rock solves that problem and micrometeorites don’t seem to be a issue for Federation technology either.[/quote]
I never said they were problems, really. But it's a little like trying to convince someone to live in an apartment building on the bottom of the sea so he can work on building a submarine. You can explain to him from now until doomsday that the building is perfectly safe and nothing USUALLY goes wrong with it. But you'll never have a really satisfying answer for the question "Why can't we just build these things on dry land like we've been doing for a hundred years?"

If you have the technology to make space travel routine, you have the technology to make it unnecessary. If you have that technology and are still sending huge amounts of people into space, then you're sending them to do something that, despite your technology, ISN'T mundane enough to be entrusted to robots. Starfleet, therefore, wouldn't be building ships in orbit unless that construction were both extremely necessary and stupefyingly dangerous. If it isn't dangerous, then it wouldn't require human workers; if it isn't necessary, then they wouldn't build in orbit in the first place.

In STXI it is suggested that it is no longer necessary. Doctor McCoy, at least, still seems to think it's pretty damn dangerous.

 

[Saquist]

The construction workers, along with much if not most of the solar system’s population, would actually live in space. As I implied previously, anti pollution measures along with the connivance and advantages of zero-G construction would have forced most heavy industry off planet decades ago. The process of industrialising space would have started in our near future due to the need to build solar power satellites without having to incur the massive cost of lifting everything from Earth. And of course, as you say, the workers would need somewhere to live plus accommodation for their families … . Didn’t I mention O’Neil colonies? Who would want to live anywhere else? I mean Earth's OK for a holiday now and then but ... .

I'm not so sure.
I think Mars and Titan would be better choices, I suspect Luna to also be planetary options but I do believe a considerable number would actually live on the port of those yards like Utopia Plantia.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Utopia Planitia is a geographical region on the SURFACE of Mars. I tend to think the construction workers for the fleet yards would probably live in the local population centers of that region.

 

[Saquist]

I said nothing about the surface of Mars.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Doesn't matter. Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards gets its name from the Utopia Planitia region on Mars. Naming wise, that would be like a facility called the "South Sahara Fleet Yards" or something, South Sahara being a geological region in Africa.

 

[Saquist]

If I didn't say the surface of Mars then it does matter.

 

[UFO]

Why? Construction workers for naval shipyards don't live at sea.

That’s because there is this convenient sea/land interface called a coastline. Most large ships aren’t built hundreds or miles inland and then taken cross country to the sea. A convenient Earth/space interface might be LEO but I prefer further afield.

Even Kirk, who spends more time in space than any of the construction workers, has an apartment in San Francisco and a house in the country. It doesn't seem that a whole lot of people actually LIVE in space, but quite a few of them WORK there.

We don’t really know that. Besides Kirk probably has his transportation "paid" for him since he works for Starfleet. Construction workers may not get as good a deal. Its still takes energy to get into Earth orbit. Once you are in orbit you are halfway to anywhere (in the solar system that is). Granted that’s using minimum energy transfer orbits, not warp factor 9 . Anyway Kirk (as captain of the Enterprise) probably spends little time at "home" so effectively he does live in space.

And resulted in a very different (and potentially more dangerous) form of pollution with the precipitous buildup of space debris. We at least know that Star Trek is experienced in cleaning up environmental catastrophes; a Kessler Syndrome is a whole different ballgame, and even in the age of forcefields and STI fields, it's something prudent to avoid.

Ah, there's your sense of humour again. You surely don't really believe that a sensible space-faring civilisation would allow space debris to exist, let-alone accumulate, around its home planet (or other commonly used places)? As you know, space debris is purely a short-lived by-product of our embryonic activities. Having long ago cleaned up our mess, the Federation would produce little new debris, and then only temporarily.

As for cleaning up environmental catastrophes I really don’t think it’s a good idea to let things get to that stage. Granted it might be possible to remove most pollutants from manufacturing processes but there is still heat pollution to worry about and other less foreseen contamination of the environment. The Prime Federation (at least) was probably keen on leaving as much of the Earth available to other species as possible, so space colonisation is a sensible policy form all angles.

IF the Star Trek universe branched off of a Ben Bova novel, sure. But it didn't: humanity discovered warp drive in the middle of the post-atomic horror and learned to meet its energy needs with fusion reactors. The Vulcans taught them how to clean up their environment and how to more efficiently develop food and medicines to take care of everyone. By the time Earth was in a position to move its core industries off planet, it no longer NEEDED to.

I have not yet been able to find any info on when fusion reactors were first used commercially in Star Trek, but just because you may have fusion power doesn’t mean it’s sensible to use it for everything. Certainly both systems could be complimentary. There also appears to be plenty of time before the third world war for space industry to develop. At least it’s seems possible there was a burgeoning space industry that to some degree may have escaped the "atomic horror" perhaps by heading out to the belt when things stared looking bad. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We at least know that mining and energy exploration--the two primary sources of pollution in modern times--have been moved elsewhere, if only because the resources those industries use are not as plentiful on Earth as they are elsewhere. But you notice in TOS and TNG that even when those mining operations are not on Earth, they are invariably on some planet or another, NOT in orbit thereof.

Yes, it’s an obvious error isn’t it. At least TOS has an excuse (better info wasn’t so widespread) but I can only assume TNG were strict canonists! I’m just trying to inject a bit more realism in to the history of Star Trek. I thought you’d like that. What do you mean: "Not this time"?

Didn’t I mention O’Neil colonies?

Another thing that doesn't exist in Star Trek, …

That we’ve seen! I know, its weird how they missed that.

… and wouldn't really need to. When you have complete mastery of artificial gravity your O'Neil colony becomes a giant mushroom-shaped spaceport

Oh of course they'd be needed, unless you like an Earth with 15 billion people or more. Apparently the war didn't kill that many people. Besides, a space port fulfils a different function (as on Earth), cities involve more than that. As for generating "gravity", why use energy to do something that nature will provide for nothing (via rotation)? What Coriolis effect? Just make your colonies bigger!

People like, for example, the VAST MAJORITY of the human race that doesn't want to have to relocate from their home town to an orbiting sardine can just to hold a job that doesn't technically pay them anything?

You mean the same VAST MAJORITY of the human race who (obviously) haven’t tried them and don’t know of their potential? Even in the west, many people relocate for a better job or environment or place to raise their children. O’Niel colonies can offer all of that in spades. "Sardine can" gives entirely the wrong impression of course. It is estimated there would be considerably more space per person than exists in a number of western cities. On top of that you could have lakes and parks to compliment any sort of environment you preferred, even a village type atmosphere rather than the stack of boxes prevalent in many cities today. Did I mention low to zero G sports like human powered flight? Mountain climbing’s a breeze as you get lighter the higher you climb!

So even in the west I'm sure there would be plenty of "volunteers", I’ll leave you to reflect on other parts of the world! Jerry Pournelle related how one of two TV technicians at a conference on lunar colonies said he would jump at the chance to go. Sure, that's a kind of planet, but similar to an O’Niel colony in most ways and far more cramped. Probably fewer trees etc too.

And why would an economy in space operate differently, remuneration wise, to one on Earth?

I never said they were problems, really. But it's a little like trying to convince someone to live in an apartment building on the bottom of the sea so he can work on building a submarine. You can explain to him from now until doomsday that the building is perfectly safe and nothing USUALLY goes wrong with it. But you'll never have a really satisfying answer for the question "Why can't we just build these things on dry land like we've been doing for a hundred years?"

If you have the technology to make space travel routine, you have the technology to make it unnecessary.

What? You mean if you have the technology to make transatlantic travel routine, you have the technology to make it unnecessary? Hmmm, I guess you don't mean that.

If you have that technology and are still sending huge amounts of people into space, then you're sending them to do something that, despite your technology, ISN'T mundane enough to be entrusted to robots. Starfleet, therefore, wouldn't be building ships in orbit unless that construction were both extremely necessary and stupefyingly dangerous. If it isn't dangerous, then it wouldn't require human workers; if it isn't necessary, then they wouldn't build in orbit in the first place.

You keep thinking of space as a necessary evil you have to travel through to get to somewhere else. Space itself really is the final frontier (To be honest I can think of other frontiers but it’s an important one). Space is were the action is, or will be. Let us free ourselves of the shackles of planet chauvinism shall we? Space colonies are really just little planets which use matter much more efficiently! There is nothing that worrying about them, certainly not by the 23rd century. They are convenient to use as construction sites for space ships because they don’t have gravity wells and atmospheres to get in the way. Heavy items are easier to move without the need of energy eating technology.

In STXI it is suggested that it is no longer necessary. Doctor McCoy, at least, still seems to think it's pretty damn dangerous.

Either McCoy is paranoid or he was thinking of life aboard a starship. Besides, in Star Trek, planets have never been all that safe either, especially recently. And that’s without considering earth quakes, volcanos, tidal waves, landslides and the like. Every colony would also be a defensive station with hardened protective areas. Don't worry, be happy.

I'm not so sure.
I think Mars and Titan would be better choices, I suspect Luna to also be planetary options but I do believe a considerable number would actually live on the port of those yards like Utopia Plantia.

I’m not sure I understand what you are not sure of? I guess people will build colonies either in space or on a planet/moon’s surface depending on what’s convenient and in a number of places. Robot or telefactor extraction, controlled from orbit/space, might be a better option for planets or moons of course.

 

[Pauln6]

Yes, it’s an obvious error isn’t it. At least TOS has an excuse (better info wasn’t so widespread) but I can only assume TNG were strict canonists! I’m just trying to inject a bit more realism in to the history of Star Trek. I thought you’d like that. What do you mean: "Not this time"?

In the original V the aliens came to Earth to steal our water. They obviously didn't notice Saturn's rings on the way in. Anybody can make a mistake.

Certain things that are implied in Star Trek are often ignored by writers perhaps because they are too subtle. If they have unlimited resources and full mastery of energy production, gravity control, and pollution control why are their starships and space stations so small? Why are 430 people expected to live in a tin can with such limited space for 5 years? Why don't Federation planets have protective forcefields to prevent attack by people like Nero? Why does thrill-seeking Kirk hang around in Iowa at the age of 25?

The writers have never been consistent about what the technological limitations might be and TNG threw most of them away rather too casually (just look at how easily Voyager survives so far from home compared to the grimy. depressing lives of the Galacticans). However, we do know that industrial accidents can and do still occur. We do know that 23rd century life can be dangerous - look at McCoy's paranoia and the fact that, apart from Geordi (whose mother died later), as at season one of TNG not a single member of the main cast had both parents still alive, despite their young age.

Personally, while I can get on board with parts of vessels being built on the surface, I don't think they'd build warp engines inside planetary atmospheres and I certainly don't think they'd construct fully completed, high powered deep space vessels or space stations on the surface of a planet.

I might be biased because I think a visual of the ship being constructed in space would have been a far cooler visual but NuTrek's decision just made my Spidey-sense tingle. It just looked and felt... illogical.

 

[spooky spice]

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.

Oh thank you!

*doesn't feel quite so stoopid now*

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Why? Construction workers for naval shipyards don't live at sea.

That’s because there is this convenient sea/land interface called a coastline. Most large ships aren’t built hundreds or miles inland and then taken cross country to the sea. A convenient Earth/space interface might be LEO but I prefer further afield.

Strictly speaking, the Earth/Space interface begins six inches above the ground. The only real problem with getting into space is the atmosphere, and if you have an easy way of getting outside of that (tugs, for example) then you can build starships anywhere you choose.

We don’t really know that. Besides Kirk probably has his transportation "paid" for him since he works for Starfleet. Construction workers may not get as good a deal. Its still takes energy to get into Earth orbit.

And energy is the one thing the Federation DOESN'T have in short supply. Even civilian shuttles can make the trip from surface to LEO and back again without having to refuel, and the Federation doesn't seem to monetize fuel costs either. And if Starfleet is paying bus fare for Kirk and crew to return home between missions, why wouldn't the contractors for starships do the same for their workers?

Once you are in orbit you are halfway to anywhere (in the solar system that is). Granted that’s using minimum energy transfer orbits, not warp factor 9 . Anyway Kirk (as captain of the Enterprise) probably spends little time at "home" so effectively he does live in space.

Ask the man himself
"Don't tell me: you're from outer space!"
"No, I'm from Iowa. I only work in outer space."

Ah, there's your sense of humour again. You surely don't really believe that a sensible space-faring civilisation would allow space debris to exist, let-alone accumulate, around its home planet (or other commonly used places)?

Of course they wouldn't. And one of the ways they would PREVENT it is to reduce industrial activities in orbit to a minimum. It doesn't take a Saturn-V launch to produce this kind of stuff; one of your dock workers looses a screwdriver or a travel pod blows a gasket or a loose screw falls out of a work bee or the foreman misplaces a box of conduit cables, you've got a free floating object whipping around Earth at orbital velocities. If you build a hundred ships in orbit, if you catch 99% of all accidentally misplaced objects, you've still added a couple of thousand objects to the orbital clutter which are potential impact hazards to other objects.

As for cleaning up environmental catastrophes I really don’t think it’s a good idea to let things get to that stage.

I doubt that they will, but that IF they should occur, they would be much easier to deal with. Orbital catastrophes would have some very serious consequences; if a starship under construction exploded for some reason, that's a HUGE amount of debris floating around. Lots of things are shielded and won't have a problem with it... but what about the other 99 ships under construction and the hundreds of space stations that AREN'T shielded?

I have not yet been able to find any info on when fusion reactors were first used commercially in Star Trek, but just because you may have fusion power doesn’t mean it’s sensible to use it for everything.

Why not? In Star Trek, they DO use it for just about everything. A few older mining stations even use FISSION reactors.

About the only thing we've never seen in Star Trek is orbital solar power. Actually, solar power of any kind seems to be something the Federation has abandoned wholesale.

Yes, it’s an obvious error isn’t it.

Is it? I don't think so. Starfleet's mission is to explore strange new worlds. Why would they explore those worlds if nobody was going to live on them eventually?

I’m just trying to inject a bit more realism in to the history of Star Trek. I thought you’d like that.

It sounds like you're trying to inject the conceits of OTHER science fiction literature into Star Trek, though, which isn't necessarily realism. Asimov and Bova do a lot of "hard sci-fi" but they rarely produce realistic images of how space exploration--or space politics--actually works in reality.

That we’ve seen! I know, its weird how they missed that.

Missed it? They simply don't exist. There's no reason for them TO exist because the Federation doesn't use rotating parts to create gravity, and never has, and never will.

Oh of course they'd be needed, unless you like an Earth with 15 billion people or more.

What I like is irrelevant. It's a question of what Earth can sustain. Federation technology, the manipulation of matter and energy and the widespread abundance of the latter, makes this a non-issue. If you're no longer dependent on the resources of the Earth for survival, then your global population can be arbitrarily high without taxing the ecosystem. Better still when huge dead areas like the Saraha can be reclaimed and made habitable, and better still when your technology enables you to make comfortable homes inside the Arctic and Antarctic circle.

"We must emigrate into space!" is the battlecry of space enthusiasts, but populations go where the resources are, where there's money to be made and opportunities to exploit. None of those things exist in an O'Neil colony; it's just a giant terrarium for the overflow population. If humans go anywhere, it'll be to one of the thousands of Earthlike planets Starfleet has charted since the 22nd century, or they'll go to Mars (which is in the process of being terraformed). The kinds of people who go into space just to be going into space... well, that's why we have Starfleet.

As for generating "gravity", why use energy to do something that nature will provide for nothing (via rotation)?

Because even in Star Trek, energy is cheaper than complex engineering.

You mean the same VAST MAJORITY of the human race who (obviously) haven’t tried them and don’t know of their potential?

Yes, them.

So even in the west I'm sure there would be plenty of "volunteers", I’ll leave you to reflect on other parts of the world!

The thing is, the original colonization of the Americas was primarily a reaction to the ecological depletion and growing poverty of Europe. The drive to the American West was a mixture of manifest destiny and the belief that new untapped resources existed there that would be easier to exploit than a highly competitive economy in the east.

Compare this to the Star Trek universe. Earth is paradise, there's enough food and energy for everyone, there is no more scarcity, not disease, no war, crime is at a minimum and everyone (evidently) has something to do. The kind of people who go into space are the kinds of people who are either bored with paradise and need a bigger challenge, or people consumed by curiosity and a sense of adventure. The former become colonists, the latter join Starfleet. The only people going into space looking for new resources are people whose ambition hugely surpasses their basic survival needs.

And why would an economy in space operate differently, remuneration wise, to one on Earth?

Because Earth is a post-scarcity economy with a very tightly controlled resource allocation. The REST OF THE GALAXY is not.

What? You mean if you have the technology to make transatlantic travel routine, you have the technology to make it unnecessary? Hmmm, I guess you don't mean that.

Indeed, which is why I didn't mention trans-Atlantic travel.

You keep thinking of space as a necessary evil you have to travel through to get to somewhere else.

That's because that's exactly what space IS. It is a giant vast and empty... SPACE. It is, in fact, the SPACE between things that potentially have value, such as comets, moons, asteroids and as many space stations as you want to build.

You go INTO space looking for things you can use, things that are valuable to your society and your economy. The damn thing of it is, not everything that's valuable to society can be found in space. In fact, not even HALF of everything that society values can come from space. Industrial ores, sure. Rare chemical substances, definitely. Solar energy... if for some reason you have a problem with fusion power, why not? But there's also food (agriculture and husbandry), living space, comfort, and privacy... just to name organic considerations for a household. Cheap access to water supplies and comfortable temperature tolerances is a widespread one. Textiles and fabrics are usually derived from plant materials, and other materials (fur, leather, suade, or something similar) from the hides of animals. There are types of gemstones that can only exist due to the interaction of mineral and water, and if you ever want to consume (or export) some kind of local delicacy, that means you're going to be farming/hunting animals indigenous to your planet.

There are lot of things worth doing in space, and for all of those things we have Starfleet. For everything else, we have colonists, and the descendents of what used to be the Earth Cargo Service, who travel through space to trade from one planet to another.

 

[UFO]

And energy is the one thing the Federation DOESN'T have in short supply. Even civilian shuttles can make the trip from surface to LEO and back again without having to refuel, and the Federation doesn't seem to monetize fuel costs either. And if Starfleet is paying bus fare for Kirk and crew to return home between missions, why wouldn't the contractors for starships do the same for their workers?

I don’t think we know that either. Being able to get to orbit and back says nothing about how much it costs. Why would the contractors send their workers some place they don’t want to go even if they could afford to?

Ask the man himself
"Don't tell me: you're from outer space!"
"No, I'm from Iowa. I only work in outer space

Which says nothing about how much time he spends on Earth. Occasional holidays mostly I would guess. Besides, you are clearly using it out of context. Kirk wasn't trying to imply he doesn't spend much time in outer space. It was put like that for its comedy value.

Of course they wouldn't. And one of the ways they would PREVENT it is to reduce industrial activities in orbit to a minimum.one of your dock workers looses a screwdriver or a travel pod blows a gasket or a loose screw falls out of a work bee or the foreman misplaces a box of conduit cables, you've got a free floating object whipping around Earth at orbital velocities. If you build a hundred ships in orbit, if you catch 99% of all accidentally misplaced objects, you've still added a couple of thousand objects to the orbital clutter which are potential impact hazards to other objects.

Even if you didn’t produce ships in an enclosed space (and you do) surely it would be possible to put a force field around a construction area? Or you could have small robots whose job it is to chase down things like that. It shouldn’t be difficult to find some solution. Surely you aren’t nitpicking for the sake of it here?

I doubt that they will, but that IF they should occur, they would be much easier to deal with. Orbital catastrophes would have some very serious consequences; if a starship under construction exploded for some reason, that's a HUGE amount of debris floating around. Lots of things are shielded and won't have a problem with it... but what about the other 99 ships under construction and the hundreds of space stations that AREN'T shielded?

Did I not say at least twice that I don’t favour LEO? Why would you put dangerous activities in or near your "back yard" much less on Earth itself? You can't have it both ways.

Why not? In Star Trek, they DO use it for just about everything. A few older mining stations even use FISSION reactors.

Because the sun provides power for nothing and they would already have such systems from prefusion times. Besides you’re the one who is worried about things blowing up.

About the only thing we've never seen in Star Trek is orbital solar power. Actually, solar power of any kind seems to be something the Federation has abandoned wholesale.

Or it’s too mundane to be depicted. Besides nothing interesting has happened near a solar power satellite yet. But a 23rd century O’Neill colony would make a great set for a movie. If these guys want to do something worthwhile, a subtle display of the opportunities available in space would be an important contribution.

Is it? I don't think so. Starfleet's mission is to explore strange new worlds. Why would they explore those worlds if nobody was going to live on them eventually?

Because they are strange and new and might contain alien civilisations. Besides the Vulcans do it all the time and they don't seem keen on excessive colonisation of planets. Hmmm, maybe they use O'Neill colonies? Anyway, information is valuable for its own sake. You never know when you might need it. But yes, there do seem to be a few people who will only be happy on planets, don’t there? The Federation obviously caters for everyone. Of course a significant advantage of space colonies is that you can settle systems that don’t have habitable planets. Star Fleet must have found a lot of those. That could be one (admittedly imperfect) "excuse" for working them into a ST movie.

It sounds like you're trying to inject the conceits of OTHER science fiction literature into Star Trek, though, which isn't necessarily realism.

You couldn’t be more wrong (though I do admire your persistence ). The only two actual books I have on the subject are both non-fiction. One by Gerard K O’Neill himself "The High Frontier" and the other by T T Heppenhiemer " Colonies in Space". I recommend both. I do own some collections of fiction and non-fiction on this general subject but I like the idea for its own sake, not because I like a science fiction story or author who may use it. I don’t understand why anyone would view it as a "conceit". It is a perfectly sensible idea in its own right. Besides, most if not all of the technology to build these things in available now (or easily developed), so its not exactly science fiction.

Asimov and Bova do a lot of "hard sci-fi" but they rarely produce realistic images of how space exploration--or space politics--actually works in reality.

Perhaps you're right because any sensible administration would have had solar power satellites etc in orbit by now. The US in particular would have been far wealthier if it had made such investments decades ago. But as you say, that is probably unrealistic. Even now, if the US is going to borrow money anyway, why not for something that will pay off big-time?

Missed it? They simply don't exist. There's no reason for them TO exist because the Federation doesn't use rotating parts to create gravity, and never has, and never will.

Sorry if I have hit a raw nerve. Its not as though I redesigned the Enterprise or ditched the prime universe or something. But seriously, it would probably take a lot of energy to create as much artificial gravity as an O’Neill colony provides. If not, then there is certainly no reason why large space colonies could not be built in convenient places.

It's a question of what Earth can sustain. Federation technology, the manipulation of matter and energy and the widespread abundance of the latter, makes this a non-issue. If you're no longer dependent on the resources of the Earth for survival, then your global population can be arbitrarily high without taxing the ecosystem. Better still when huge dead areas like the Saraha can be reclaimed and made habitable, and better still when your technology enables you to make comfortable homes inside the Arctic and Antarctic circle.

Temporary reprieves at best. But why would a sensible society allow such environments to be destroying in that fashion for a short term gain? Oh sure you can sustain a very high density population with the right technology but I think most people would rather have the elbow room. Why go half way across the galaxy to a frontier planet when you can have as good or better living conditions off the bat in the solar system? And as I said, there are other species beside us to consider. Might I suggest its time you watched ST4 again?

"We must emigrate into space!" is the battlecry of space enthusiasts, but populations go where the resources are, where there's money to be made and opportunities to exploit. None of those things exist in an O'Neill colony; it's just a giant terrarium for the overflow population. If humans go anywhere, it'll be to one of the thousands of Earthlike planets Starfleet has charted since the 22nd century, or they'll go to Mars (which is in the process of being terraformed). The kinds of people who go into space just to be going into space... well, that's why we have Starfleet.

The resources, "money" and opportunities are in space. O’Neill colonies can be placed close to those opportunities. Besides I am sure there are more than enough people who don’t share your limited viewpoint. O’Neill himself was inundated with letters from people who were excited about living in space. I doubt most of them were applying to join Star Fleet! You still don’t get that planets are just incubators and nurseries for intelligent species.

Because even in Star Trek, energy is cheaper than complex engineering.

You mean generating artificial gravity doesn’t involve complex engineering? I am surprised.

Compare this to the Star Trek universe. Earth is paradise, there's enough food and energy for everyone, there is no more scarcity, not disease, no war, crime is at a minimum and everyone (evidently) has something to do. The kind of people who go into space are the kinds of people who are either bored with paradise and need a bigger challenge, or people consumed by curiosity and a sense of adventure. The former become colonists, the latter join Starfleet. The only people going into space looking for new resources are people whose ambition hugely surpasses their basic survival needs.

However much of a "paradise" 23rd century Earth might be (and that’s probably because most people live in space colonies, of course), O’Neill colonies offer more specialised opportunities and an even better environment. As I said the colonisation of space would have started over 150 years before the Federation we see in Kirk’s time. Earth wasn’t even close competition then. And of course the motivations for emigrating you provide are certainly not the only ones possible.

Because Earth is a post-scarcity economy with a very tightly controlled resource allocation. The REST OF THE GALAXY is not.

If that means massive wealth would be available to anyone going to space to live and work, I agree. I don’t see that as a disincentive though. Once again, colonies are just little "planets" with easier access to resources. I can’t see any reason their economies would be different except for being more affluent.

You go INTO space looking for things you can use, things that are valuable to your society and your economy. The damn thing of it is, not everything that's valuable to society can be found in space. In fact, not even HALF of everything that society values can come from space. Industrial ores, sure. Rare chemical substances, definitely. Solar energy... if for some reason you have a problem with fusion power, why not? But there's also food (agriculture and husbandry), living space, comfort, and privacy... just to name organic considerations for a household. Cheap access to water supplies and comfortable temperature tolerances is a widespread one. Textiles and fabrics are usually derived from plant materials, and other materials (fur, leather, suade, or something similar) from the hides of animals. There are types of gemstones that can only exist due to the interaction of mineral and water, and if you ever want to consume (or export) some kind of local delicacy, that means you're going to be farming/hunting animals indigenous to your planet.

You do seem in need of expanding your knowledge of O’Neill colonies. As mentioned previously, living space is no more of a concern (in fact less so) that many cities on Earth. Comfort and privacy ditto. You obviously don’t appreciate the size of these things. They literally are cities in space, perhaps 20 miles or more long by 10 or so in diameter (as previously mentioned). There could also be specialist agricultural colonies to trade with if you want that delicacy you mentioned, although there is no reason most can’t be self-sufficient in food. By the way, don’t a lot of non-Star Fleet people live on DS9 which has nothing like the facilities or room an O’Neill colony could provide?

I can understand your resistance based on Star Trek canon issues, though ways round that are always possible. Its your "Senator William Proxmire" like opposition that I find less comprehensible.

P.S. I have to apologise for initally spelling Professor O’Neill’s name wrong!

 

[Pauln6]

I think the true post scarcity economy only came in with replicators. TOS is not a post scarcity economy and I like it all the more because of that. Even in TNG they can't use replicators to produce large, complex structures like ships or space stations. Energy is still an issue in TNG and it was more of an issue in TOS.

Harry Mudd is a con man - why would he need to con anybody in a post scarcity economy? Mudds women fancy the miners because they are rich. Why would wealth matter in a post scarcity economy? Starfleet has to carry out numerous mercy missions to deliver food, medicine, or technological aid.

The limits of what can be achieved may be great. The limits of what may be achieved on an everyday basis may be quite different. The TOS Enterprise was not designed to land. At the very least its parts should not have been fully assembled until it was in space and some of its parts should have been fitted together in space. It would have been cooler. It would have made more sense. If I ever learn how to edit movies I will edit that scene out for my home copy.

 

[BK613]

What, this again?
The Federation of TOS had the anti-grav technology to keep an entire city aloft for years and peeps are hand-wringing over lifting a a puny little starship into orbit?

 

[Saquist]

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!

Yes...design intent...
the technology is new and redundancy is only needed so far...so a triple redundant systems for grounding...(transporter, landing and shuttles) would be a bit much.

It's not that getting it into space is a problem...
It's just why would you build on the ground in the first place?
When it comes back will it need to do the same (no) there's a space station as big as death Star in orbit. Why they didn't build it there is a "who knows"

And we all know the real reason....

 

[Pauln6]

Yes...design intent...
the technology is new and redundancy is only needed so far...so a triple redundant systems for grounding...(transporter, landing and shuttles) would be a bit much.

It's not that getting it into space is a problem...
It's just why would you build on the ground in the first place?
When it comes back will it need to do the same (no) there's a space station as big as death Star in orbit. Why they didn't build it there is a "who knows"

And we all know the real reason....

Yep - that pretty much sums it up.

 

[beamMe]

It only looks silly if you insist that it couldn't fly in atmosphere. As I've already said, in that universe the impossible is just an obstacle to be overcome. The visual was great but I always buy the whole package so it wasn't a problem for me.

Lol - yeah, they just need the eqivalent of Heisenberg Compensators to overcome the laws of aerodynamics and they are sorted! Saying a wizard did it doesn't cut it for most trekkies.

But the magic wand that is the warp-core is just fine, right.

 

[Pauln6]

It only looks silly if you insist that it couldn't fly in atmosphere. As I've already said, in that universe the impossible is just an obstacle to be overcome. The visual was great but I always buy the whole package so it wasn't a problem for me.

Lol - yeah, they just need the eqivalent of Heisenberg Compensators to overcome the laws of aerodynamics and they are sorted! Saying a wizard did it doesn't cut it for most trekkies.

But the magic wand that is the warp-core is just fine, right.

Actually, a lot of thought went into the pretend physics of the warp core. Magnetic force fields with controlled matter and anti-matter interaction is a decent way to release a lot of energy, albeit it would be nowhere near enough to warp space and achieve faster than light travel. Boffins have hypothesised that the dilithium crystals magnify the energy reaction somehow so dilithium is the 'magical' component that makes it all work.

 

[BK613]

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!

Yes...design intent...
the technology is new and redundancy is only needed so far...so a triple redundant systems for grounding...(transporter, landing and shuttles) would be a bit much.

There is a difference between landing and being landed. IOW, aircraft carriers are not designed to be amphibious but they can be unfloated (drydocked.)

It's not that getting it into space is a problem...
It's just why would you build on the ground in the first place?

Because it's better for the construction workers...
-shirt-sleeve environment
-no effects of weightlessness
-no increased radiation exposure
-no SAS
-no risk of ebullism or other space/vacuum-related dangers

And the ship gets built quicker because...
-no wasted man-hours prepping for the hazards of space (spacesuits, meds, etc.)
-no cumbersome spacesuits

When it comes back will it need to do the same (no) there's a space station as big as death Star in orbit. Why they didn't build it there is a "who knows"

Because it's a space port and not a shipyard, maybe?
---
IBH, I am glad that JJ didn't have a TMP-style spacedock scene: Just image the inane, which-is-better argument that would have resulted if that had happened!