Starbase 001: Unrealistic?

[aridas sofia]

It is meant to show some blocking of visible light as well. That is why it isn't transparent. Let's put it this way -- if within the context of Star Trek you can see a starship clearly and it is being protected by shields that will defend it against incoming energy weapons, then I'm confident this little blue screen is a fine way of communicating a protective forcefield.

 

[ancient]

It is meant to show some blocking of visible light as well. That is why it isn't transparent. Let's put it this way -- if within the context of Star Trek you can see a starship clearly and it is being protected by shields that will defend it against incoming energy weapons, then I'm confident this little blue screen is a fine way of communicating a protective forcefield.

Ok, it just seemed like you were saying that it wasn't transparent...and you can see through it. A tinted forcefield would probably solve the problem.

They had the same trouble with large domed stadiums. Just putting in regular glass turns it into an oven, and adds glare, which blinds people - most importantly the players.

Come to think of it, the mushroom section also looks a bit similar to a domed stadium...

 

[USS Mariner]

Unrealistic? Depends on how much "bloat" was stuffed into the contract. Politics can make anything happen.

Stupid looking? Yes.

 

[Christopher]

Sure it has a real-world basis, just a terrestrial one, not a space one, which is why it is so stupid. The thing is like the old Moffet Field blimp hangar, looking very much like that shuttle departure area in the TREK trailer. Big waste of space unless you're berthing blimps on a planet.

Err, it's in space, so there's plenty of space to spare. Why not enclose a large area? Gives the ships and workers more elbow room. The only thing being "wasted" would be hull material, but there are millions of asteroids you could harvest that from.

Of course, there's more waste if it's pressurized, but I don't think pressurization would be such a good idea, given that the ships are designed to work in vacuum. Also, if someone did attack the Spacedock, or if one of the ships within it suffered an accidental explosion, you'd want a vacuum inside so the shock and heat wouldn't propagate. If there were a large explosion inside a pressurized space habitat, the overpressure shock in the atmosphere could rupture the hull. (TV and movies condition us to think that fireballs are the dangerous parts of explosions, but what really makes them destructive is the atmospheric shock waves. In vacuum, that threat is absent, although you still have to worry about shrapnel and radiation.)

I'd WTC that sucker, crash it down into Earth.

Huh? Assuming it's in a natural orbit, rather than some kind of forced levitation, why would bombing it or crashing a ship into it cause it to de-orbit? Maybe if you crashed into its leading face on a trajectory directly opposing its orbital velocity, you'd slow it down a bit and cause it to fall into a lower or more elliptical orbit, but given the mass differential between it and a starship, you'd have to come in at a pretty high velocity to match its kinetic energy, and at that kind of speed you'd just blow it apart into a cloud of orbiting debris. Maybe a small percentage of that debris would be on deorbit trajectories, but those pieces would burn up in the atmosphere. If you wanted to crash the whole thing, you'd have to impart a sustained deceleration, tow it with a tractor beam to cancel its orbital velocity.

Yes, yes, I know, ST practically copyrighted the nonsensical idea of a spaceship's orbit "decaying" if its power was cut. But I rationalize that by assuming that starships normally maintain forced orbits, such as stationary orbits at low altitudes, in order to stay in comm/transporter range of their landing parties and such. In those cases, they would have to apply continuous power to avoid falling, since it's more of a high hover than an actual orbit. But there's no reason to assume that Spacedock would be in a forced orbit rather than a natural one.

Ok, it just seemed like you were saying that it wasn't transparent...and you can see through it. A tinted forcefield would probably solve the problem.

So would a door. I'm not a fan of the sci-fi tendency to embrace a less efficient, more power-intensive solution just for the sake of seeming "futuristic." It violates the engineer's maxim to keep it simple.

True, there is ST precedent for forcefields over hangar exits, but those designs invariably have physical doors as well. The fields allow a shirtsleeve environment in the hangar and avoid the need for lengthy depressurization and repressurization of the bay, but they aren't intended to take the place of physical doors and be in use 100 percent of the time. It's just common engineering sense to have a simple, physical backup system in case of power failures and malfunctions.

I think the large bay doors on Masao Okazaki's Vanguard station design from the novels are a good design.

 

[aridas sofia]

It has nothing to do with doing something "just for the sake of seeming "futuristic." It has to do with providing a rapid escape route. Given what has been seen onscreen of such forcefields, where they for example, separate a flight deck from space on the 1701-D, dropping them almost instantly opens the deck to space. A door is mechanical and no matter how speedy its mechanism, it can't afford as quick a route out.

The hangar area on the refit 1701 uses such forcefields. Gravity manipulation is so commonplace and dependable in the Trek universe that it is the very last thing to fail in an emergency. Besides, would a culture so flush with available energy that they can warp space need to worry about whether the door or the forcefield takes more power?

The forcefield protects the interior, is in keeping with the established practice of using such devices on flight decks and hangars, and has much greater tactical utility. As for backup, of course there would be some sort of barricade in case of field failure. But it would be more defensive in nature -- if the interior volume of that dock is not pressurized, then the main reason to even create such a space would be to isolate the ships from the exterior environment. It's not as if a failed forcefield would have people running to the transporters to escape. They'd leave the thing open until the field generator was fixed. And if need be put a little hyronalin in the water supply.

I like Masao's Vanguard station quite a bit. I like Reverend's retro TOS-era Spacedock. But I was setting out to fix the one we saw on screen with the minimum amount of intrusion on the design we saw, not design something different.

 

[Christopher]

It has nothing to do with doing something "just for the sake of seeming "futuristic." It has to do with providing a rapid escape route. Given what has been seen onscreen of such forcefields, where they for example, separate a flight deck from space on the 1701-D, dropping them almost instantly opens the deck to space. A door is mechanical and no matter how speedy its mechanism, it can't afford as quick a route out.

Redundancy is a basic engineering principle. It makes no sense to rely exclusively upon a barrier that ceases to exist if the power is cut. You want a passive alternative as a backup at the very least.

And a door can provide a quick escape route in emergencies, if you equip it with explosive bolts.

The hangar area on the refit 1701 uses such forcefields.

Yes, in conjunction with physical doors, not instead of them. As I already acknowledged, virtually every Starfleet shuttlebay from TMP onward has been depicted with forcefields as well as doors, but I can't recall ever seeing one that didn't have doors at all.

Gravity manipulation is so commonplace and dependable in the Trek universe that it is the very last thing to fail in an emergency.

You're conflating two different fictional technologies with different fictional rationales behind them. Artificial gravity is always the last to fail because TV shows can't afford to simulate freefall very often. However, story exigencies often require "wall"-type forcefields to be among the first systems to fail when there's a power shortage; see any episode where a power fluctuation allows a dangerous prisoner to escape from the brig or creates the risk of an antimatter containment-field failure leading to a core breach. Abundant canonical evidence demonstrates that forcefield barriers are very vulnerable to failure from any number of causes.

Besides, would a culture so flush with available energy that they can warp space need to worry about whether the door or the forcefield takes more power?

Just because you can waste energy doesn't mean it's a good idea. Even with unlimited power, would you want to live in a house where the roof above your head was only held up by an electrically powered cable-and-pulley system that would cause said roof to crash down on top of you if the power failed? Isn't that a needless indulgence at best?

I like Masao's Vanguard station quite a bit. I like Reverend's retro TOS-era Spacedock. But I was setting out to fix the one we saw on screen with the minimum amount of intrusion on the design we saw, not design something different.

Huh? That's exactly what I'm proposing. Keep the TSFS Spacedock, keep its design principle of using doors, just make the doors bigger and more numerous. Also, the shape of Masao's bay doors is a better aesthetic match with the domed design of Spacedock than a rectilinear design like the movie's space doors. Also, they would be much taller than that rather narrow cutout on your proposed redesign, allowing more 3-dimensional clearance for incoming/outgoing ships and potentially accommodating larger ships as well. (The main problem with "11001001"'s use of TSFS stock footage for its starbase is that the spacedoors in the original Earth Spacedock would've been too small for the E-D to pass through.)

Besides, let's not forget that ultimately this is fiction and designs exist to serve storytelling needs. The movie required a tense moment when the crew was afraid the doors wouldn't open in time to let them get the ship out safely. If the barrier were simply a ship-permeable atmosphere containment field of the sort seen in standard Starfleet use, there would've been no suspenseful moment there.

 

[Plecostomus]

Those who are pooing the doors, consider that there might be other frangible panels and blow-off plates throughout the structure. Plus, what's stopping a ship on the inside from making its own exit in a severe emergency? Phasers + Wall = escape route.

 

[Tigger]

And why assume that Earth is always under imminent threat of sneak attack so you'd never want to put anything inside Spacedock lest it be ambushed?

It was for dramatic reasons that Star Fleet didn't launch anything from Spacedock in ST: IV until the probe was right on top of them. They knew from at least the Klingons and the Lexington that the thing killed the power of any ship it encountered and Saratoga might have warned them, as well. Plus considering how "gung-ho" Cartwright was in ST: VI, do you really think he'd leave his ships parked inside the dock with an unknown entity closing on Earth? Puh-leeze.

While I have never believed that Spacedock is pressurized, as noted, there are some advantages to enclosing the space (even if I believe that the "open docks" have radiation and other types of shielding). I agree with those who believe the upper area serves, at least in part, as a "transit terminal" for Star Fleet - and quite probably civilian - traffic. It would have been great to see some great starliner ("the Andorian Express") pulling out and heading off to a week of sun and fun and that likely would have helped deflect some of the arguments.

Plus they're really Kewl.

That's the real crux of the argument - aesthetics. Personally, I do think it looks cool. But I also think the TMP structures look cool, as well. Maybe Spacedock does have an "Old Republic" influence (decades before that style was defined in the prequels), but the architecture of Venice and Angkor Wat is old, too, and nobody seems to feel they should be plowed under and replaced with glass and steel edifices.

 

[aridas sofia]

It has nothing to do with doing something "just for the sake of seeming "futuristic." It has to do with providing a rapid escape route. Given what has been seen onscreen of such forcefields, where they for example, separate a flight deck from space on the 1701-D, dropping them almost instantly opens the deck to space. A door is mechanical and no matter how speedy its mechanism, it can't afford as quick a route out.

Redundancy is a basic engineering principle. It makes no sense to rely exclusively upon a barrier that ceases to exist if the power is cut. You want a passive alternative as a backup at the very least.

And a door can provide a quick escape route in emergencies, if you equip it with explosive bolts.

You aren't acknowledging that I agreed a barricade might be a good idea. You've skillfully skipped that part of my post:

"As for backup, of course there would be some sort of barricade in case of field failure. But it would be more defensive in nature -- if the interior volume of that dock is not pressurized, then the main reason to even create such a space would be to isolate the ships from the exterior environment."

I simply disagree that it needs to be the barrier of first resort. This doesn't seem to be a pressurized environment, as I also noted in an earlier post. It doesn't need to contain a massive atmosphere and prevent explosive decompression. The doors are there apparently just to create a bottleneck. On the face of it, ANY alternative -- no doors at all -- would be better. And your contingency of bigger and more numerous doors that would blow away in an emergency is prone to catastrophic failure with debris creating the very same kind of delays that jammed doors create.

The hangar area on the refit 1701 uses such forcefields.

Yes, in conjunction with physical doors, not instead of them. As I already acknowledged, virtually every Starfleet shuttlebay from TMP onward has been depicted with forcefields as well as doors, but I can't recall ever seeing one that didn't have doors at all.

What does that prove? Shuttlebays enclose an atmosphere. If this huge Manhattan-sized station doesn't enclose an atmosphere, then you are comparing apples and oranges. What are the doors enclosing? Or are you saying that they keep something out? Are they keeping out radiation? How much danger is there in leaving the station open until the forcefield is repaired? After all, these are spaceships that we see time and again built and serviced in free space.

As long as we agree that it is a horrible mistake to keep ships contained in the station in case of attack, and that the ships need to be able to move as rapidly as possible into open space to maneuver and defend the station, then defense against attack isn't one of the reasons for the doors. You only need a barrier AFTER the ships escape, and only if there is some vulnerability in the interior that needs to be protected against attack.

Gravity manipulation is so commonplace and dependable in the Trek universe that it is the very last thing to fail in an emergency.

You're conflating two different fictional technologies with different fictional rationales behind them. Artificial gravity is always the last to fail because TV shows can't afford to simulate freefall very often. However, story exigencies often require "wall"-type forcefields to be among the first systems to fail when there's a power shortage; see any episode where a power fluctuation allows a dangerous prisoner to escape from the brig or creates the risk of an antimatter containment-field failure leading to a core breach. Abundant canonical evidence demonstrates that forcefield barriers are very vulnerable to failure from any number of causes.

That's fair, but if the forcefield is more akin to sunscreen than prison bars, it's not relevant.

Besides, would a culture so flush with available energy that they can warp space need to worry about whether the door or the forcefield takes more power?

Just because you can waste energy doesn't mean it's a good idea. Even with unlimited power, would you want to live in a house where the roof above your head was only held up by an electrically powered cable-and-pulley system that would cause said roof to crash down on top of you if the power failed? Isn't that a needless indulgence at best?

Once again, that's fair. IF this field were doing anything more than deflecting a little radiation. If it's only being used to maintain an airless environment isolated from free space, there's no "roof falling down" if the shield fails.

I like Masao's Vanguard station quite a bit. I like Reverend's retro TOS-era Spacedock. But I was setting out to fix the one we saw on screen with the minimum amount of intrusion on the design we saw, not design something different.

Huh? That's exactly what I'm proposing. Keep the TSFS Spacedock, keep its design principle of using doors, just make the doors bigger and more numerous. Also, the shape of Masao's bay doors is a better aesthetic match with the domed design of Spacedock than a rectilinear design like the movie's space doors. Also, they would be much taller than that rather narrow cutout on your proposed redesign, allowing more 3-dimensional clearance for incoming/outgoing ships and potentially accommodating larger ships as well. (The main problem with "11001001"'s use of TSFS stock footage for its starbase is that the spacedoors in the original Earth Spacedock would've been too small for the E-D to pass through.)

Besides, let's not forget that ultimately this is fiction and designs exist to serve storytelling needs. The movie required a tense moment when the crew was afraid the doors wouldn't open in time to let them get the ship out safely. If the barrier were simply a ship-permeable atmosphere containment field of the sort seen in standard Starfleet use, there would've been no suspenseful moment there.

You've got a point. I'd rather the opening be taller. But this again cuts to the central question of whether the dock needs to allow the starships inside to rapidly escape, or needs to keep them contained and protected in case of attack. If the ships inside stay inside, they are unavailable to defend the station and themselves become sitting ducks. In the end, they've got to get out, and how quickly and easily they get out in what would be a chaotic attack situation is what needs to drive the dock design. Ideally, the ships would be spread out in TMP-style drydocks, instead of concentrated in one target zone. But assuming that there is some reason for ships to be at a central station, and be docked in an environment protected from space, then the design needs to take account of BOTH the need for central docking AND rapid exit. You haven't mentioned one reason why optimizing for failsafe protection is more important than optimizing for rapid exit. Why is it so important to have a hatch that won't suddenly open to the outside environment? In the end, a door is a door. Why is there a need for a door?

And don't say "storytelling needs" -- I've already acknowledged that the door was there for filmmaking purposes:

Maybe it wouldn't have had the drama of an opening hatch, but I'm sure creative camera angles could have made up for any problems.

There are ways to design a sensible station that still meets the needs of the storyteller. I'm surprised a successful novelist like you would argue otherwise.

 

[aridas sofia]

And why assume that Earth is always under imminent threat of sneak attack so you'd never want to put anything inside Spacedock lest it be ambushed?

Are you serious? Does Earth need to "always be under threat of sneak attack" to take precautions in case there is EVER a sneak attack?

Plus they're really Kewl.

That's the real crux of the argument - aesthetics. Personally, I do think it looks cool. But I also think the TMP structures look cool, as well. Maybe Spacedock does have an "Old Republic" influence (decades before that style was defined in the prequels), but the architecture of Venice and Angkor Wat is old, too, and nobody seems to feel they should be plowed under and replaced with glass and steel edifices.

I just wanted to see this finally be posted -- the statement that this nonsensical, illogical design is there... because it looks "Kewl". I love it. Because, as we all know, it is impossible to design something that makes sense AND looks "kewl".

As far as this humongous, Manhattan-sized station being meant to look old goes, who knows? If it was meant to look old, great. But if it is old, it had plenty of time for its kinks to be ironed out, so "old" is no excuse for a poor design. If anything, it is even more reason why it should have been perfected.

 

[Tigger]

And why assume that Earth is always under imminent threat of sneak attack so you'd never want to put anything inside Spacedock lest it be ambushed?

Are you serious? Does Earth need to "always be under threat of sneak attack" to take precautions in case there is EVER a sneak attack?

I imagine that is why they put in a door.

I just wanted to see this finally be posted -- the statement that this nonsensical, illogical design is there... because it looks "Kewl". I love it. Because, as we all know, it is impossible to design something that makes sense AND looks "kewl".

I happen to think is makes sense and looks "kewl", but whatever. Since the mods are stepping up enforcement, I'll just leave my comment at that and not risk adding more fuel to an already blazing inferno.

 

[aridas sofia]

And why assume that Earth is always under imminent threat of sneak attack so you'd never want to put anything inside Spacedock lest it be ambushed?

Are you serious? Does Earth need to "always be under threat of sneak attack" to take precautions in case there is EVER a sneak attack?

I imagine that is why they put in a door.

I like that.

I just wanted to see this finally be posted -- the statement that this nonsensical, illogical design is there... because it looks "Kewl". I love it. Because, as we all know, it is impossible to design something that makes sense AND looks "kewl".

I happen to think is makes sense and looks "kewl", but whatever. Since the mods are stepping up enforcement, I'll just leave my comment at that and not risk adding more fuel to an already blazing inferno.

I don't see anyone saying anything that I take offense to. And if anyone has taken offense to anything I've said, I'm sorry. I've asked repeatedly for anyone to come up with a reason for an enclosed environment that actually needs doors more than it needs fast exits, and no one has done so, at least in a way that makes sense to me. If that constitutes "blazing inferno" so be it. I think the inferno is actually conventional wisdom running out of ways to rationalize Spacedock. But since I don't want you boys to get into trouble, I will just shut up and stop fanning the flames with an opinion that obviously runs against the wisdom of the crowd.

But if anyone can answer my question, I'll be reading, and be much obliged.

 

[aridas sofia]

You know, I just remembered that I'd promised myself not to get into discussions like this on this board anymore. Truthfully, anyone should be allowed to believe what they want to believe about Star Trek. It's fiction, and even if you want to see something just because it looks cool, some bully like me shouldn't come in and go all rhetorical on you. it just doesn't matter that much. So please, really, accept my apologies and continue with the discussion.

 

[Silversmok3]

In response to the title,there's nothing unrealistic at all about spacedock,or starbase 001,whatever name you want.In fact,its more like a spaceport than anything-and like an airport,you design the space for machines and the people to crew them.

As hangars are to airplanes,spacedock is to starships.There's plenty of good reasons why you'd want to house starships 'indoors':Coronal Mass Ejections and the associated radiation,the temperature swings from night to dark,protecting from micrometeroite damage,cosmic rays too-you wouldn't want high-energy particles entering the powered-down warp cores of starships orbiting HQ.
Speaking of HQ,there needs to be an admin center to coodinate traffic management,starfleet personell transfers,and starship deployments.For those purposes Spacedook is well designed.

And for those proposing a 'Pearl Harbor' traffic jam in a fight,let's not forget its at Earth-meaning its the strategic equivalent to a tank battle on the Pentagon lawn!If there's an active war zone around Earth you'd better hope we don't need the powered-down ships in the dock,'cause any enemy with brains would knock out Spacedock before any could be launched.Reference ST IV when the probe neutralized said spacedock before the emergency scramble could be done.

To wit,it would require that the orbital defenses +close starships be destoyed or disabled.In a conventional raid it would be better strategy to shut the doors and raise shields until the calvary arrived.

One last point-the only drawback to Spacedock's design is the eventual need to expand the doors and interior dimensions as ships grow.I don't think a Galaxy class can fit inside spacedock as is-and it would be a tight fit for a Sovereign.

 

[Vance]

You know, I just remembered that I'd promised myself not to get into discussions like this on this board anymore. Truthfully, anyone should be allowed to believe what they want to believe about Star Trek. It's fiction, and even if you want to see something just because it looks cool, some bully like me shouldn't come in and go all rhetorical on you. it just doesn't matter that much. So please, really, accept my apologies and continue with the discussion.

Isn't that a bit like taking the high road... right over the cliff?

It's not that you're not welcome or wanted in these discussion or anything, or even that you don't obviously enjoy and feel passionate about these discussions.. it's just that you take them a bit personally. Certainly feel free to explain your point of view, just keep in mind that since we're dealing with a very muddled fictional universe, none of us are ever really going to be 'right'.

 

[Lyon_Wonder]

I like the design. It's elegant, it looks very TOS-like, and it looks like exactly what it is: A huge-ass office building in space.

I consider the docking area to essentially just be a parking garage, similar to one an office building might have to keep the employees' cars out of the weather.

I wouldn't put any kind of transparent door (like a forcefield) around the dock. Under direct sunlight it would get pretty darn hot. A good alternative would be an opaque forcefield, such as a holographic wall. Though that still leaves the power-drain issue.

Really, the mushroom base probably has about as much chance of being attacked as your local office building. Ok, so the twin towers were attacked. That doesn't mean we should put a weapon turret on every office building. If well protected, it has no need for it's own defenses.

Stafleet probably added defenses to Spacedock at some point, especially after the first Borg invasion in TNG, and certainly when war broke out with the Dominion. I wonder if the Breen took shots at spacedock too, in addition to San Francisco? Maybe spacedock has shields too.

 

[trevanian]

As hangars are to airplanes,spacedock is to starships.There's plenty of good reasons why you'd want to house starships 'indoors':Coronal Mass Ejections and the associated radiation,the temperature swings from night to dark,protecting from micrometeroite damage,cosmic rays too-you wouldn't want high-energy particles entering the powered-down warp cores of starships orbiting HQ.
Speaking of HQ,there needs to be an admin center to coodinate traffic management,starfleet personell transfers,and starship deployments.For those purposes Spacedook is well designed.

They already had an admin center for traffic mgmt in TMP, the space office complex Kirk had beamed to. It was separate and probably coordinated work at all the various drydocks, because you don't need to by physically linked in order to administer to affairs.

I don't see spacedock as fitting with anything that had been seen previously in the Trek universe's Starfleet; it is clearly an incursion from ILM's SWverse, something grounded in terrestrial thinking, not extrapolating a good design from legit sources, a la TMP.

 

[ancient]

It just looks like a really huge, angular version of K-7 to me. Sans arm-thingies.

 

[Albertese]

I always figured it had more than one door (3? 4? 6?) and that you could pressurize sections of the mushroom for really major repairs, since that sort of thing is easier in a shirt-sleeves environment. But ordinarily it would be vacuum. The Art of Star Trek page 220, has pictures of various concept models made during the pre-production of Star Trek III. The one on the lower left seems pretty much like the winner, but the photo is form a low angle, almost like we saw in Star Trek VI. It seems like I've seen a picture of the top of this model that shows 6 doors, but, for the life of me, I can't seem to find it anywhere on-line. If it's in one of my books, I forget each one...

 

[GodThingFormerly]

...something grounded in terrestrial thinking, not extrapolating a good design from legit sources, a la TMP.

Seriously. The hardware design ethos of Phase II/TMP even managed to anticipate by almost three decades a real-world space platform proposal.

TGT