Terok Nor mining

[Timo]

Granted, some of that deck space is going to be too curvy to be really useful

All of it will be useless in a sphere so small... And the current design clearly shows that machinery needs to be exposed rather than buried in a "pit".

In a station kilometers across, pennywising about deck area just won't happen. The Tech Manual does its best to describe all vertical features as being vertical for a reason; apart from that, the station is simply a flat disk like every other Trek structure, with a nice and continuous flat floor that will further remain continuous with the similar floors of visiting starships. That's obviously advantageous, with no real penalties. Why bother with tighter packing when clearly tightness is not a design concern to begin with?

Their freighter/transport designs seem to fit the bill perfectly.

Which one? We have seen something like half a dozen, and while basically all have been shown docking with an upper pylon, none have demonstrated surface-to-orbit capabilities or landing gear, in the Cardassian context or in any of their other uses by other cultures and organizations.

It's a lot more likely to be semantics, Timo, unless the pylon they were in actually some unseen structure directly below the core.

So, when emerging on top of a major stretch of a structure perhaps a hundred levels tall in total, they decide to go "up" to reach their ultimate goal? That doesn't sound like human beings talking.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Albertese]

...
Why bother with tighter packing when clearly tightness is not a design concern to begin with?

Tightly packing the design isn't perhaps a major concern, but it's not so little a concern so as to warrant "not" in italics. The DS9 tech manual says that the original design was to have the pylons arc out instead of in, to make their docking areas more accessible, but it was decided to arc them in to make it easier to contain the whole structure (as well as an docked ships) inside to perimeter of the station's defensive shielding. So, compactness was an issue at some point.

It's a lot more likely to be semantics, Timo, unless the pylon they were in actually some unseen structure directly below the core.

So, when emerging on top of a major stretch of a structure perhaps a hundred levels tall in total, they decide to go "up" to reach their ultimate goal? That doesn't sound like human beings talking.

Timo Saloniemi

You know what sounds like humans talking: These people spend most of their time in the core and various rings that are literally "below" the ops center, so they've fallen into the habit of referring to ops as "up" even if they are technically much higher than that in the upper pylons. I see no conflict with casually saying "go up to ops" while literally being higher than that already.


--Alex

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Granted, some of that deck space is going to be too curvy to be really useful

All of it will be useless in a sphere so small...

Not at all. At the lower levels, the spherical layout the walls of individual rooms cannot help but angle slightly outwards from wherever it is you're standing. You gain not only more deckspace, but more useable workspace since you can produce angled walls that would otherwise be perfectly vertical, but without intruding into the space of the next room. At the higher levels, this effect is diminished, but on the other hand still provides the illusion of greater space since the ceiling covers so much greater surface area than the floor.

And the current design clearly shows that machinery needs to be exposed rather than buried in a "pit".

Some of it does. Most of it, however, is buried behind access panels you can only get to through crawlspaces.

the station is simply a flat disk like every other Trek structure, with a nice and continuous flat floor that will further remain continuous with the similar floors of visiting starships.

Right. And I figure the reason for that -- as it is on ALL starships -- is that artificial gravity is hard to control and a uniform direction on all decks is preferable, even if that direction is really inconvenient for the shape of the deck space.

Their freighter/transport designs seem to fit the bill perfectly.

Which one? We have seen something like half a dozen, and while basically all have been shown docking with an upper pylon, none have demonstrated surface-to-orbit capabilities or landing gear

The Cardassian transport from "For the Uniform" -- the one Eddington shoots down while he is trying to escape after poisoning the colony -- is implied to have physically taken off from the surface of the planet.

So, when emerging on top of a major stretch of a structure perhaps a hundred levels tall in total, they decide to go "up" to reach their ultimate goal?

You and I meet each other at in an underground parking lot and get in a car, and I turn to you and say "Let's head down to City Hall and hand in this report."

What direction are we about to go? Up or down?

 

[Timo]

The DS9 tech manual says that the original design was to have the pylons arc out instead of in, to make their docking areas more accessible, but it was decided to arc them in to make it easier to contain the whole structure (as well as an docked ships) inside to perimeter of the station's defensive shielding. So, compactness was an issue at some point.

It's more like there was a desire to provide the internal empty space with docking ports - apparently, there was always going to be enough space there to accommodate entire starships.

These people spend most of their time in the core and various rings

True - but that only makes the experience of being high up in one of these tall towers a more intense one. The heroes often enjoy this for effect, such as in the aforementioned "Crossover". So it's quite like a "Die Hard" remake, with the hero finally emerging from the top of the elevator shaft of Chrysler Building and thinking "I have to get up to the Empire State Building now to defuse that other bomb!". There would be a time for the "up" thought, but before that, there would be a concern about getting "back" down to what amounts to street level.

Right. And I figure the reason for that -- as it is on ALL starships -- is that artificial gravity is hard to control and a uniform direction on all decks is preferable, even if that direction is really inconvenient for the shape of the deck space.

...Which would explain why the Cardassians would want to do a disk plus prominent towers if they wanted two separate functional sections for their station, each with its own direction of gravity.

The Cardassian transport from "For the Uniform" -- the one Eddington shoots down while he is trying to escape after poisoning the colony -- is implied to have physically taken off from the surface of the planet.

It's said to be spiraling down after losing power. But takeoff is not implied in any sort of preference over the more usual (and, in a disaster, much faster) beaming up of passengers/cargo.

I turn to you and say "Let's head down to City Hall and hand in this report." What direction are we about to go? Up or down?

Since parking lots tend to be frightening mazes, I'll take your word for it and head down in order to get out and get my bearings...

OTOH, while going "down" is a well-known, existing expression (for a variety of things, most of which don't apply here), there is AFAIK no equivalent expression for going "up" to places unless they are physically above the speaker. That is, downtowns may indeed traditionally be downhill, but even "going up to the Capitol" requires local knowledge of the local Capitol indeed being up on a hill and isn't universal.

FWIW... Is there a resource for Level numbers aboard the station? I can't remember any instances other than these two episodes, and the data there doesn't seem to create any helpful limitations or criteria, other than the low numbers starting from the very top of an upper pylon.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Albertese]

...

OTOH, while going "down" is a well-known, existing expression (for a variety of things, most of which don't apply here), there is AFAIK no equivalent expression for going "up" to places unless they are physically above the speaker. That is, downtowns may indeed traditionally be downhill, but even "going up to the Capitol" requires local knowledge of the local Capitol indeed being up on a hill and isn't universal.
...

Timo Saloniemi

I don't know about where you live, but here in the Pacific Northwest where I spend all of my time, "up" and "down" in this sense are used pretty much interchangeably and without regard to altitude. If anything, the consideration is directional. One goes up to Seattle from Portland and up to Portland from Salem, but down to Salem from Portland. If you're going to the coast, you go "down" or "out" and if you go to Madras or Spokane, it's "up", "down", or "out." But that's just in transit from city to city. Within the confines of one city (or even the greater metropolitan area of a city) it's "up" or "down" pretty much interchangeably.

Maybe it's a regional thing? I just assumed that's how everyone did it. The only other place I've ever been in for any length of time is California and I didn't notice a different use there. Maybe it's a West Coast thing...

 

[Timo]

I'm the last person to really know, really. The prominence of "down" and lack of "up" is just what I get from general literature. Say, in whodunnits and costume dramas alike, they're indeed always going "up" to the manor, but only because it's established as being on a hill... Whereas only (Ba)Sin City downtown is specified as really being downhill from everywhere, but the expression is universally used.

On the issue of ships vs. transporters being used to haul the ore up from the planet to the station, my main objection to these putative ships being something already seen on screen is that all the ships we have seen have been starships, vessels capable of interstellar travel. One definitely wouldn't want that capacity in an ore shuttle - it's a colossal waste of resources to begin with and, more damningly, diminishes the ore payload by the dead weight of the warp engines.

That aside, the Groumall with her container-type cargo holds might be the one practical ore-hauler, but she also appears to be the least aerodynamic and least compact type for the purpose.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

True - but that only makes the experience of being high up in one of these tall towers a more intense one. The heroes often enjoy this for effect, such as in the aforementioned "Crossover". So it's quite like a "Die Hard" remake, with the hero finally emerging from the top of the elevator shaft of Chrysler Building and thinking "I have to get up to the Empire State Building now to defuse that other bomb!". There would be a time for the "up" thought, but before that, there would be a concern about getting "back" down to what amounts to street level.

That effect would be totally neutralized, though, in a tall building with no windows.

The Cardassian transport from "For the Uniform" -- the one Eddington shoots down while he is trying to escape after poisoning the colony -- is implied to have physically taken off from the surface of the planet.

It's said to be spiraling down after losing power. But takeoff is not implied in any sort of preference over the more usual (and, in a disaster, much faster) beaming up of passengers/cargo.

Newton's laws and all that; a spacecraft in orbit will REMAIN in orbit until something significantly slows its velocity. Merely disabling the transport's engines shouldn't have caused any sort of downward spiral unless it was in the process of inserting itself into orbit when Eddington fired on it.

OTOH, while going "down" is a well-known, existing expression (for a variety of things, most of which don't apply here), there is AFAIK no equivalent expression for going "up" to places unless they are physically above the speaker.

could be just a Chicago thing, but the phrases "down the street" and "up the street" mean approximately the same thing. There used to be a subtle implication that "up the street" is in the direction AWAY from the Loop, but then Millenium Park turned into a freaking spaceport and now we have people saying "go up to millennium park" even if they are physically standing in a skyscraper downtown.

As a side note: artificial gravity aside, need I remind you that there is actually no "up" or "down" in space?

 

[Timo]

That effect would be totally neutralized, though, in a tall building with no windows.

Not when it still has a truly vertigo-inducing staircase the heroes have to negotiate - all the way to the "other up" - before they reach their horizontal connection to their next destination!

Merely disabling the transport's engines shouldn't have caused any sort of downward spiral unless it was in the process of inserting itself into orbit when Eddington fired on it.

To the contrary, a common event in Star Trek is that a ship playing mother hen to a landing party will start plummeting down from standard orbit when losing power. This is rather easily explained by defining standard orbit as hovering above the landing party within transporter range (i.e. above the local horizon) - and this is also what an evacuation ship would be doing in that situation if transporting people from the surface.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That effect would be totally neutralized, though, in a tall building with no windows.

Not when it still has a truly vertigo-inducing staircase the heroes have to negotiate - all the way to the "other up" - before they reach their horizontal connection to their next destination!

Humans navigate visually, not inertially. It's one of the reasons we're so bad at navigating mazes: we can't tell where we are without a visual reference point.

Which means no matter how high they climbed, they would not have been overly surprised if they came to a window and saw the ops tower fifty meters above their heads. INTELLECTUALLY there would be a "Wait, how long have we been climbing?" but in terms of "finding your way" it doesn't manifest automatically unless you can see where you're going.

Merely disabling the transport's engines shouldn't have caused any sort of downward spiral unless it was in the process of inserting itself into orbit when Eddington fired on it.

To the contrary, a common event in Star Trek is that a ship playing mother hen to a landing party will start plummeting down from standard orbit when losing power.

Most of the time, though, this requires interaction with an outside source that is pulling the ship downwatds. The typical example is PSI-2000 when Riley turns off the engines, but it's implied this is the result of the planet's gravitational flux. Various other incidents show the same basic pattern: the only time the ship begins to plummet is when something CAUSES it to through malice.

This is rather easily explained by defining standard orbit as hovering above the landing party within transporter range (i.e. above the local horizon) - and this is also what an evacuation ship would be doing in that situation if transporting people from the surface.

That would be a plummet, not a spiral. Totally different kind of flight profile.

 

[Timo]

Humans navigate visually, not inertially. It's one of the reasons we're so bad at navigating mazes: we can't tell where we are without a visual reference point.

This only applies to horizontal mazes, though. The staircase down would be a very real physical obstacle the heroes would be consciously anticipating at the specific point where they say they need to get "up" to Ops.

Various other incidents show the same basic pattern: the only time the ship begins to plummet is when something CAUSES it to through malice.

This doesn't exactly serve as an argument for the transport being on her way up from the gravity well. If anything, if she were, loss of power would cause her to plummet up, along the trajectory she was maintaining. OTOH, if she were hovering, a very obvious "outside source" would start pulling her down, too.

That would be a plummet, not a spiral. Totally different kind of flight profile.

Umm, no. Conservation of angular momentum and all that. Definitely a spiral. (In the obvious frames of reference anyway.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Humans navigate visually, not inertially. It's one of the reasons we're so bad at navigating mazes: we can't tell where we are without a visual reference point.

This only applies to horizontal mazes, though. The staircase down would be a very real physical obstacle the heroes would be consciously anticipating at the specific point where they say they need to get "up" to Ops.

And would be slightly disoriented for like two seconds if that point never comes. They're still not thinking of their destination as being a fixed point relative to their current location UNLESS they can see it, or some other sort of visual reference (a map, for example) that marks their position in space.

This doesn't exactly serve as an argument for the transport being on her way up from the gravity well. If anything, if she were, loss of power would cause her to plummet up, along the trajectory she was maintaining.

But if the transport was not on an ORBITAL trajectory, it is still destined to hit the ground even on a parabolic course that briefly carries it upwards. If the transport is hit about 500km up with an apogee at 1000km, it's still destined to crash and burn if its perigee is at a point 400km below the surface of the planet (or, realistically, anywhere below the cline of its atmosphere).

Umm, no. Conservation of angular momentum and all that. Definitely a spiral. (In the obvious frames of reference anyway.)

The "obvious frame of reference" in this case is the planet itself. Any altitude low enough for impact with the ground to be a problem is WAY too low to produce a noticeable coriolis effect, in which case it IS a vertical plummet, not a spiral.

The freighter would actually have to be dropping from a stationary position at least 5,000km straight up for it to even BEGIN to look like a spiral (realistically, though, probably geostationary or higher) which would defeat the purpose of Eddington's firing on it since any vessel at that high altitude would take several hours to hit the ground.