Very good points! I guess I didn't think about there being a force field covering the bay doors on the starbase because the typical glowing border around the door frame wasn't there. I'm not sure the designers were really thinking in those terms when the models were built, but it makes tons of sense for that to be the case.
TMP/TWOK Dry Dock Question
- Thread starter USS Valkyrie
- Start date
But what would be the benefit of having a shirt-sleeve zero-G environment? Especially with reaction thrusters spewing particulates all over the place as starships and shuttles moved about. Sure you could recycle the atmosphere, but that just adds more complexity.
Plus starships displace atmosphere as much as they would displace water, so you would need a system to reduce the pressure when a starship entered and add it back when it left. Again, more complexity.
And what happens when the field fails? When the Probe killed the power, those shuttles and starships would have been sucked towards (and possibly out) the door.
And since non-SF personnel used the station, it would be kind of hard for Star Fleet Intelligence to keep things quiet. Not to mention, as soon as the ship left the dock...
No, I believe the reason the dock is enclosed is because it makes it easier for people to transit to and from the ships and made re-provisioning easier. I honestly don't believe it was normally used to build starships. Excelsior was in there because the test crews needed regular access and she was being prepared for her first trials. Galaxy was assembled inside one (at UP) likely because they wanted all the design teams "next door" as they developed and built the ship.
Well, first, What's wrong with complexity? I think it would be a bit naive to just dismiss complexity outright. That space station is undoubtedly one of the most complex structures ever envisioned. You have to look at the underlying purpose behind the design to begin withm whatever that is. All we have is the evidence on screen. The filmakers probably just thought "It's kewl." But the Federation/Starfleet mindset behind it has to be rationalized within the fictional context.
The designers of the station thought it was necessary to build such an enormous enclosed docking area. Lots of room for lots of ships. The more the merrier. However, it only has 4 (I think) relatively tight squeeze openings (for the larger capital ships at least) as the only ingress/egress. Top it off with mammoth, lumbering doors, to ensure that docking area is in fact completely closed off to the rest of the galaxy. Something tells me they might have worked a little complexity into their blueprints.
As to the apparel they would wear while within the dock, shirt sleeve casual and Bermuda shorts might be a bit relaxed for said environment, but at least there wouldn't be the need for such tight restrictions. But imagine some type of dedicated welding garb or the ability to fly around in your workbee without having to ensure complete atmospheric integrity. Imagine getting to step out onto your hull and inspect some minor damage first hand without having to suit up and double check your gear. Might speed things up a bit. Not that I would want Starfleet personnel to start getting lazy or anything but efficiency might be served.
As to the recycling of atmosphere, it might be especially necessary depending on what reaction thrusters actually spew, but despite the complexity it may be worth it. Then again maybe only the small craft use propellant as their primary means of thrust. the larger ships might not use much reaction thrust since Spacedock seems to control all incoming ships, maybe by means of tractor beams and limited thrusters. G's might be controllable in limited and specified areas.
Unless you are moving 40 starships into that large area simultaneously, I think that such pressure regulation should be simple to remedy.
A catastrophic failure like that may indeed have been possible, had the doors been open. But in TVH there is no indication the doors had been opened yet. But it begs the question, what purpose do the doors serve other than to keep out and keep in. Force fields wouldn't necessarily be actively maintaining atmosphere when the doors were closed.
Starfleet suffered some pretty lame preparedness in TVH if you ask me, but it wouldn't have been the first time or the last. That whole scene was a bit silly actually. Not only did they lose power but the shuttles within the dock actually stopped moving, even though their inertia should have just kept them barreling on forward until they collided with something.
For the record, I don't personally buy the Starfleet Intel Paranoia bit. I was just tossing it out there as the only other (albeit far fetched) reason for a closed off docking area.
And since non-SF personnel used the station, it would be kind of hard for Star Fleet Intelligence to keep things quiet. Not to mention, as soon as the ship left the dock...
Well, I ask, how does being enclosed benefit the ease of transit to and from the ship? A large docking facility without an enclosed design should have been able to serve that function just as easily and without requiring all the complexity you find unnecessary. Especially if there was no atmosphere, with or without enclosure, an airlock would be mandatory.
P.S. For the record, I don't think it was used as a dedicated building facility either.
The real reason was that ILM wanted to reuse the Death Star Interior model from Return of the Jedi the prior year...
For the record, I never liked it, and I felt it looked nothing like a Federation or Star Fleet structure. I wished they had used the FJ starbase myself, but oh well.
For the record, I never liked it, and I felt it looked nothing like a Federation or Star Fleet structure. I wished they had used the FJ starbase myself, but oh well.
The "atmospheric haze" we witness inside the dock might be due to exhaust gases from all the starships and other machinery within - simple pollution rather than breathable air. (Indeed, perhaps the enclosure is there to contain that nasty pollution. )
One might argue that this massive structure is a relic of the past, perhaps something constructed back when fragile starships needed to be kept safe from constant exposure to cosmic radiation or simple sunlight, and spent most of the time idled at port anyway. The entire (United Earth?) Starfleet might have fit within back then.
Then again, (UFP) Starfleet seems to keep on building similar structures in the TNG era, basing three-digit starbases on the design. Possibly there is some utility value to the option of pressurizing the volume at times.
Or then it's just a matter of protecting shipments against attack. Naturally, an open-framework space pier will receive and deliver shipments more efficiently than an enclosed one, but a few meters of hull metal will be a very nice protection against Klingon disruptor bolts when the fragile cargo is being transferred.
Timo Saloniemi
)One might argue that this massive structure is a relic of the past, perhaps something constructed back when fragile starships needed to be kept safe from constant exposure to cosmic radiation or simple sunlight, and spent most of the time idled at port anyway. The entire (United Earth?) Starfleet might have fit within back then.
Then again, (UFP) Starfleet seems to keep on building similar structures in the TNG era, basing three-digit starbases on the design. Possibly there is some utility value to the option of pressurizing the volume at times.
Or then it's just a matter of protecting shipments against attack. Naturally, an open-framework space pier will receive and deliver shipments more efficiently than an enclosed one, but a few meters of hull metal will be a very nice protection against Klingon disruptor bolts when the fragile cargo is being transferred.
Timo Saloniemi
The "atmospheric haze" we witness inside the dock might be due to exhaust gases from all the starships and other machinery within - simple pollution rather than breathable air. (Indeed, perhaps the enclosure is there to contain that nasty pollution.
Ah ah ah.... Nasty pollution containment. That sounds like a need for complexity. Don't let Tigger hear you say that.
Actually I had considered the pollutant "haze" factor before, but it seems to be in awfully high abundance even for the number of small craft and large ships normally seen in that station. And I have to argue that if you wanted to contain such pollutants, every time you opened the doors there would be the potential for escape. Seems like of half-ass job of containment. Unless you used force fields? Eventually you would need to remove said pollutants as they ganged up on you and began to pressurize even in limited quantities. So you would need some sort of system to vacate the interior volume. Again more complexity. Seems to me that just by creating this enclosed space the designers have already necessitated more complexity by default.
How old a relic might you say? I can't think of anything less useful than a fragile starship that needed protection from cosmic radiation or the sun. Even Kahn's little old Botany Bay seemed to have cleared that hurdle. Granted cosmic radiation is powerful, and the solar wind from our sun is nothing to sneeze at, but hopefully a society that could manage to construct such a gargantuan station and maintain it in an orbit around the planet might be able to employ a trick or two to overcome the effects from these factors, even when a ship is in stand down mode. But it is a point worth considering. Especially if you are suggesting that their ships' (relic or otherwise) ability to handle such conditions is tied to their functional status (powered shields and such) and not intrinsically a part of their construction (insulated hull materials and the like.)
I must say I admire your ability to see so many facets of a subject.
Possibly. But imagine, 1 or 2 little cloaked adversarial ships (Klingons, Romulans, take your pick) a few well placed disrupter hits to the four doors of that station effectively knocking out exits or at least bottle necking the entire joint further, and it sounds like a recipe for Pearl Harbor 2283 if you ask me. I'd just hope too many capital ships aren't there all at once. (Of course Starfleet never has too many ships at Earth during a crisis, so that shouldn't be a problem.
)In the end I just have to say, that while I don't have any proof, and the production people may have just made a huge mistake with their attempt to portray the spacedock as futuristic science ficiton, I simply like the idea of a space station that might at least at times have the ability to support a habitable atmosphere within its vast open structure. Whether it is a complex waste of resources or a viable method of operation with unforeseen benefits, I can only speculate. But I too think it is "kewl."
P.S. I just discovered another argument similar to this in the new movie section, but I have been avoiding that forum for a while now due to spoilers. It is not the topic origin, but it diverged into this subject for a bit and is related to the overall subject matter. Avoid if you are spoiler sensitive.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=47448
I never realized how many people were anti-Spacedock atmosphere.
I know that Andy Probert explicitly indicated a simple, chemical RCS system for station keeping, but it's always bothered me. I mean, the amount of gravity manipulation going on inside the ship, not to mention in the warp drive itself, indicates that the ship can simple and easily keep itself in place just fine without blowing smoke. They're already deforming spacetime inside the ship with the deck plates -- is extending their influence outside pose any problem?
That's why I am uncomfortable to add thrusters and such to the exterior of TOS ships. They are already exhibiting more advanced technology than in TMP, at least as far as station keeping is concerned.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
I don't recall any episode of TOS where the NCC-1701 passed only meters from another object as she did in the drydock departure sequence of ST:TMP.
TGT
Last edited:
But imagine the fine scale manipulation of gravity needed just to replicate one gee inside the ship. Wouldn't keeping the ship from hitting the drydock be a piece of cake in comparison? It seems to me that keeping the mass of the ship in place in spacetime would be more of a gross trick than keeping all those little people head-up and feet-down.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
The presence of RCS thrusters on the Refit clearly indicates - at least to me - that a mechanism designed to generate a constant local gravitational field vector for crew comfort is for whatever reason not optimally suited for efficient low-velocity space vehicle translation.
TGT
But I think we did see someone in a spacesuit waving at Enterprise as she departed in TMP...either he's a yard worker wishing the ship godspeed or a 23rd-Century air traffic controller, one or the other...
Actually, it was a fan who won the special spot at TrekCon 2203 (or whatever) at the auction for 5.3 x 10E23 credits.
Last edited:
The presence of RCS thrusters on the Refit clearly indicates - at least to me - that a mechanism designed to generate a constant local gravitational field vector for crew comfort is for whatever reason not optimally suited for efficient low-velocity space vehicle translation.
TGT
Definitely. But the absence of them on the original Enterprise gives the impression something else is going on.
The presence of RCS thrusters on the Refit clearly indicates - at least to me - that a mechanism designed to generate a constant local gravitational field vector for crew comfort is for whatever reason not optimally suited for efficient low-velocity space vehicle translation.
TGT
Definitely. But the absence of them on the original Enterprise gives the impression something else is going on.
My problem with the fancy stuff you are talking about it that my technology teacher pounded into all of us in the class I took was the engineering philosophy of KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.
This was elegantly put by scotty in trek III, "The more they over think the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
So, even if such a system you speak of is on the ship, it wouldn't be prudent to not have a simple, chemical RCS system as a back up.
Well, about the dry dock. I am currently working on a 3D version of it and it got me to thinking... What exactly are those big panels that are part of every frame member? You might think they were some sort of uniform lighting elements (as they appear to be in Generations when the dock was reworked to house the Excelsior) but they aren't particularly bright enough in my opinion. Also, the dock has significant spot and flood light action by other means. Another simple factor is the detail that is on them. They really look remarkably complex to be nothing more than lights. There are lines and circles and individual glowing lights all about. In fact, they look like a cross between a circuit board and some sort of sporting play area. When I was a kid I used to think they were big basketball courts or something.
I've theorized that maybe they are a complex form of tractor/repulser emitter that can help in the overall complex construction of a ship like the Enterprise. Maybe finely tuned for moving larger pieces of frame work and hull plates into their programmed positions and holding them there until they are properly connected. "Tractor billets" sounded like an interesting term for them. Opinions?
I've theorized that maybe they are a complex form of tractor/repulser emitter that can help in the overall complex construction of a ship like the Enterprise. Maybe finely tuned for moving larger pieces of frame work and hull plates into their programmed positions and holding them there until they are properly connected. "Tractor billets" sounded like an interesting term for them. Opinions?
It's not as if there is any question about whether there is such a system on the ship. There definitely is such a system. They have artificial gravity all over the place. The only question is, as TGT points out, why they don't point it "outward" as well as "inward".
Using it inside but not using it to hold the ship in place seems a little like making oxygen for fuel but not using it to breathe. You can make up a reason for it but it'll be a stretch. Sure, we don't want mumbo-jumbo pseudoscience, so we'll include rocket impulse and thrusters. But... we'll still have warp drive and artificial gravity, much more-massive applications of the pseudoscience? That's inconsistent with the basic assumption that these people have mastered gravity.
My point has been, when you look at something like the Phase II drydock, you see bigass thrusters. But somewhere (I can't remember where) it's mentioned that the yards are old, and that the drydock is an old drydock. Even so, by the time Andy Probert got hold of the dock, it had lost the ridiculously big thrusters (thankfully), but the new E had gotten little ones.
Weird.
BTW, as for the big panels... those are the artificial gravity panels holding the ship in place.
Last edited:
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
As I fearlessly proclaimed in this post, the original NCC-1701 lacks visible RCS thrusters for precisely the same reason she lacks visible phaser banks, photon torpedo launchers and tractors beam emitters.
The drydock is already equipped with two low-power tractor beam "anchors" (the twin sets of square lights visible near the bottom of the framework in this screencap) to neutralize any velocity differentials that may appear between the structure and the spacecraft it is servicing. Regarding those glowy panels, I would assume that they are designed to provide a constant level of ambient light - and are thus capable of variable luminosity - for the spacesuited yard monkeys as the complex moves in and out of Earth's shadow cone during each orbit.
That is from an interview with Andrew Probert concerning his work on ST:TMP printed in a 1980 issue of Fantastic Films Magazine.
TGT
Last edited:
It may not be appropriate to assume that the RCS thrusters on the refit Enterprise are necessarily traditional gas jets/rockets as we know them. They could be some kind of force beam emitter, or some kind of localized inertial control device. Additionally, we don't necessarily know that they are the primary RCS for the ship. In fact, the absence of such devices on the original Enterprise might be interpreted to suggest that the visible RCS quads on the refit ship are backups to some sort of unseen primary system.
Last edited:
...We might even argue that the squeaky-clean yellow finish of the RCS points stands testimony to their disuse in normal conditions.
Shane Johnson in his Mr Scott's Guide certainly suggested that the "particle thrust" RCS fitted for TMP was a novelty, not present in the TOS vessel. For all we know, the white-lit squares on the saucer "corners" were the original RCS, utilizing direct gravitic thrust instead of spitting out particles Newtonially.
Then again, it might be the most elegant solution to say that the technology has remained basically unchanged (since it was present in ENT as well as TOS movies and TNG), but that TOS engineers loved to cover everything with stealth paint or somesuch. As TGT said, the torpedo tubes and phaser emitters must be there somewhere, even if unseen.
Timo Saloniemi
Shane Johnson in his Mr Scott's Guide certainly suggested that the "particle thrust" RCS fitted for TMP was a novelty, not present in the TOS vessel. For all we know, the white-lit squares on the saucer "corners" were the original RCS, utilizing direct gravitic thrust instead of spitting out particles Newtonially.
Then again, it might be the most elegant solution to say that the technology has remained basically unchanged (since it was present in ENT as well as TOS movies and TNG), but that TOS engineers loved to cover everything with stealth paint or somesuch. As TGT said, the torpedo tubes and phaser emitters must be there somewhere, even if unseen.
Timo Saloniemi
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
They are referred to as "maneuvering thrusters" in dialogue which strongly implies a Newtonian operation.
How many separate RCS systems does a starship require, exactly? Losing the warp drive could conceivably strand the vehicle hundreds or thousands of light years from the nearest starbase. Losing the impulse engines would be serious, but survivable. Losing the RCS, however, would only make it impossible to hard dock with an orbital facility. This would be a relatively trivial concern, as repair crews and replacement parts could be dispatched to the ship while she is still days or weeks away from arrival. Hell, the work bees we saw in ST:TMP could probably function as space tugs in emergency situations, particularly with those "claw-arm grabber" modules attached.
But there have never been any references made to your "unseen primary system" in either on screen dialogue or in background production documentation (i.e., The Making of Star Trek and the Star Trek Writer & Director's Guide (Bible)). I assume that the original NCC-1701 lacked a visible RCS because it simply never occurred to Gene Roddenberry or Matt Jefferies to include them on the miniature. A similar case could also be made for the lack of visible phaser banks and photon torpedo tubes, in that GR probably hoped to somehow sidestep telling stories that required spacecraft to shoot death rays at each other before such compulsory space opera tropes became unavoidable circa Balance of Terror.
TGT
Last edited:
^The original intent definitely was a mix of Newtonian (impulse) and exotic (warp) propulsion systems. The description of the impulse drive -- hell, even its name -- tells us as much. And if you use Newtonian mechanics for gross realspace propulsion needs, why not for pin-point maneuvering? When I've designed some TOS or pre-TOS-era ship, I've acknowledged as much, and included the various thrusters, or some subtle hatch to indicate they are there, hidden. My only point above was that there is a contradiction that presents certain difficulties. While we can say that the use of space warping technology is inadvisable in anything but open interstellar space, and that starcraft thus need Newtonian means of maneuvering in the close proximity of any mass greater, perhaps, than itself, we cannot avoid the fact that the artificial gravity within the ship is itself a spacewarping technology.
There must be a means of containing the "bent space" that allows artificial gravity in the ship, to the confines of the ship. I bet that this is the line of reasoning that led to the statement in TMP that the ship had to "risk" initiating warp drive in the Solar system -- they were straightening out little contradictions and inconsistencies once they were brought up by far brighter minds than even the creative wundermänner that originally developed Star Trek. To wit, why have impulse if you can just warp everywhere? And if you must use impulse in certain situations, why would you not need its smaller siblings for maneuvering?
To get my comments back on track, this would mean the drydock is held in relative position with thrusters, but might use gravitic tractor beams to hold a ship in place. But, any deleterious, space-bending effect of using the tractor beams over a prolonged time is mediated by some means of containing those effects to the dock.
And that might just be the explanation for the apparently superfluous framework of the drydock.
There must be a means of containing the "bent space" that allows artificial gravity in the ship, to the confines of the ship. I bet that this is the line of reasoning that led to the statement in TMP that the ship had to "risk" initiating warp drive in the Solar system -- they were straightening out little contradictions and inconsistencies once they were brought up by far brighter minds than even the creative wundermänner that originally developed Star Trek. To wit, why have impulse if you can just warp everywhere? And if you must use impulse in certain situations, why would you not need its smaller siblings for maneuvering?
To get my comments back on track, this would mean the drydock is held in relative position with thrusters, but might use gravitic tractor beams to hold a ship in place. But, any deleterious, space-bending effect of using the tractor beams over a prolonged time is mediated by some means of containing those effects to the dock.
And that might just be the explanation for the apparently superfluous framework of the drydock.
Last edited:
Similar threads
