Trek XI Earth spacedock?

[Lyon_Wonder]

In Trek XI we see a Earth space station which is kind of reminiscent of the “Starfleet Headquarters” in Franz Joseph’s TOS tech manual.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/spacedock-trekxi-wallpaper.jpg

In the movie this station is referred as spacedock. Could spacedock as seen in Trek XI also exist in the Prime universe at the time of TOS, only to be supplanted by the mushroom cloud spacedock in the TOS movie era?

 

[Tigger]

It's certainly possible. It could also still be present in the movie era, the two being in close orbit on different sides of the planet so the older dock is not visible in Trek III and IV.

 

[Peter the Younger]

Hell, for all we know ground based spacedocks could be present in the TNG era. According to her bridge plaque, the Enterprsie-D was commissioned at the Utopia Planetia shipyards on Mars. It always seemed odd to me that an orbital facility would be named for a feature on the surface of Mars; Trek XI suggests it might have been on Mars itself, after all. (the canon cultists will no doubt scream "sacrilege!" at this suggestion.)

 

[trevanian]

It always seemed odd to me that an orbital facility would be named for a feature on the surface of Mars

No different than the orbital shipyards over earth being named for San Francisco. (folks can pick nits over whether the spaceoffice complex and drydock that make up the shipyard just passes over SF occasionally while in geosync or if it hovers above SF, which would mean it wasn't really in orbit at all and is a weird piece of hokum.)

 

[Timo]

Where is the ST:TMP facility (the floating office, the box dock, or both, or both and more) identified with San Francisco? I don't think there's any onscreen mention of this anywhere - merely some musings in the novelization.

For all we know, the San Francisco yards that were responsible for building Kirk's ship were indeed located within the city limits of San Francisco. Whatever those limits may be in the 2240s...

It could also still be present in the movie era, the two being in close orbit on different sides of the planet so the older dock is not visible in Trek III and IV.

Really, Earth could have a thousand of those things in orbit at the same orbital height, and it would still be virtually impossible to see two at the same time. Space is big, space stations (even those dozens of kilometers across) are small, and the human eye is not particularly sharp.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Christopher]

Was the structure in question really called "spacedock" in the movie? The official website identifies it as Starbase One. And with its disc-shaped pods, it strikes me as a design relative of the Centroplex station from TMP.

And really, it doesn't make sense to call it a "dock" -- it's a station. Sure, it has docking ports, but so does DS9.

 

[Timo]

OTOH, why have a "starbase" next to your home system, rather than, say, at a "star"? Yes, technically Sol qualifies for a star, but why build a self-contained entity where lots of distributed resources are available? Why not reserve the title "starbase" to self-contained bases far away from your home, like in ENT?

If the station's prime function is to dock ships (either in the sense of granting them safe moorings, or in the sense of removing them from their environment for a while so that repairs can be effected), then "dock" sounds like a fine choice of a name to me... But if the station does something else, then a different name would be in order. We just haven't heard of any other function yet.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Christopher]

OTOH, why have a "starbase" next to your home system, rather than, say, at a "star"? Yes, technically Sol qualifies for a star...

"Technically?" It is a star, period. Every planet orbits a star (except for the odd rogue). So it's taking things way too literally to say a starbase is called that because it's near a star. By that token, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is a starbase since it's only 499 light-seconds, on average, from a star. Presumably the usage is either metaphorical (because it sounds less goofy than "space base") or short for something like "Starfleet base" or "starship base."

but why build a self-contained entity where lots of distributed resources are available? Why not reserve the title "starbase" to self-contained bases far away from your home, like in ENT?

Who says the term has to be limited to self-contained facilities? In real life, there are plenty of military bases that are located adjacent to major population centers; indeed, that's a logical place to put them, because it gives them access to the resources of those population centers. DS9 is a starbase in the heavily populated Bajoran system. We've seen other starbases on or in orbit of habitable planets which could've had civilizations on them.

If the station's prime function is to dock ships (either in the sense of granting them safe moorings, or in the sense of removing them from their environment for a while so that repairs can be effected), then "dock" sounds like a fine choice of a name to me...

Have you looked at the picture? The ships are moored to the edges of the disc-shaped segments. They're not "removed from their environment" any more than a starship docked to one of DS9's pylons would be. Nobody's ever called DS9 a spacedock. It's a space station.

Besides, the question isn't whether you can rationalize calling it a spacedock. The question is whether it actually was called that or not in the film itself. If it wasn't called that, then the usage is conjectural. And the term Starbase One comes from the film's official site, which means that, though it isn't canonical, the term may have been used by the filmmakers themselves.

 

[trevanian]

Where is the ST:TMP facility (the floating office, the box dock, or both, or both and more) identified with San Francisco? i

In Susan Sackett's column from GR's notes, not in a movie. Didn't we cover this three years ago?

 

[Ronald Held]

Perhaps a spacedock include repair facilities, and not just a docking ports?

 

[Christopher]

I ask again: is there any evidence that this structure was called "Spacedock" by anyone other than Ex Astris Scientia? If it's just a fan's speculation, then there's no need to try to justify it.

 

[buzzknox]

OTOH, why have a "starbase" next to your home system, rather than, say, at a "star"? Yes, technically Sol qualifies for a star, but why build a self-contained entity where lots of distributed resources are available? Why not reserve the title "starbase" to self-contained bases far away from your home, like in ENT?

Nothing says that when it was built, this wasn't "Earth Station 1", "Asgard" or "the Station." As more facilities were built, they decided to standardize a naming system, such as "starbases." It's possible this was done to prevent arguments over the proper names of facilities in formerly disputed territories. Given Earth's position in the Federation, this station gets the place of primacy in the naming scheme and becomes Starbase 1.

 

[Ghost Rider]

When the Enterprise was pulling away with the rest of the fleet.I do remember them refering to it as Spacedock.

 

[Christopher]

^Okay. Some data at last. I'll have to pay attention for that when I go see the film again.

Of course, "spacedock" is hardly a unique name, so there's no need to assume that this structure exists instead of the one from ST III or will be replaced by it. A spacedock is just a dock for a spaceship. Personally I'd be surprised if "Earth Spacedock" were the formal or only designation for the big mushroom thingy. So there's no reason this structure couldn't be named Starbase One and still described as a spacedock. Or maybe the term "spacedock" refers to the disc-shaped extensions specifically -- they're the docks of the starbase, just as those sticky-outy thingies along the Hudson and East Rivers are the docks of Manhattan.

 

[Ronald Held]

if one is to be strict, did they call it a space dock or a Spacedock?

 

[Praetor]

Wasn't FJ's Starbase One supposed to be way out in a remote, neutral sector?

 

[Christopher]

^FJ's tech manual shows "Star Fleet Headquarters," Starbase 1, and Starbase 2 in a triangular arrangement with Sol at the center, all about 5 parsecs (or about 16 light-years) from Sol. That's within Federation territory as FJ defines it, not a remote, neutral sector. The station in the FJ Tech Manual whose design resembles the orbital facility in the movie was called Star Fleet Headquarters, not Starbase 1.

I've seen fan/tie-in material that proposed a remote location for Starbase One, and I've seen material that put it in Earth orbit (including Articles of the Federation and other Trek fiction from Pocket Books). The Trek novel Invasion: Time's Enemy put it in Sol System's Oort Cloud, way out on the fringes of the system. There's no consensus. It was never established in canon, so naturally fans have made up all sorts of different interpretations for it.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

In Trek XI we see a Earth space station which is kind of reminiscent of the “Starfleet Headquarters” in Franz Joseph’s TOS tech manual.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/spacedock-trekxi-wallpaper.jpg

In the movie this station is referred as spacedock. Could spacedock as seen in Trek XI also exist in the Prime universe at the time of TOS, only to be supplanted by the mushroom cloud spacedock in the TOS movie era?

There's no reason to assume that they'd be "supplanted," either.

One of the biggest problems with Trek, both from the standpoint of fans and from the standpoint of those making the shows, has been to treat the Trek universe as being... well... kinda small.

Look around, just down here on Earth. In one country... in one state... hell, even in just one TOWN. There entire "trek universe" is really smaller than that. Just a handful of people, always running into each other at every turn. Just a couple of ships doing anything interesting. Just one "spacedock" at Earth.

I Like F.J's space station concept, though I do NOT accept it as "Starfleet Headquarters." I don't mind it being one of a series of starbase "standard designs" out there, and don't mind one or more of these having a "starfleet headquarters" facility inside (in the same sense that there are multiple "headquarters" operations for the Navy, dependent on which fleet or operational group you're talking about). But there's simply no way to have a spaceborne facility be anywhere nearly as secure and self-sufficient as a planetbound one could be. There are advantages to being in space, but the sort of things you really want from a "headquarters..." not so much.

So, let's just say we have several "F.J" style space stations... with at least one in the SOL system (based upon that design, I'd be inclined to put it near Jupiter, personally).

We know that there are a series of "mushroom" starbases throughout Federation space, with at least one in Earth orbit.

The interesting thing re: the ST-09 station is that it really has more in common with Probert's "space office complex" (albeit uber-over-sized) than with anything else we've seen.

I'd have no problem with it existing in Earth orbit, right alongsize a few dozen other facilities. The assumption that there is "just one" is what I find so utterly silly.

 

[RobertScorpio]

It always seemed odd to me that an orbital facility would be named for a feature on the surface of Mars

No different than the orbital shipyards over earth being named for San Francisco. (folks can pick nits over whether the spaceoffice complex and drydock that make up the shipyard just passes over SF occasionally while in geosync or if it hovers above SF, which would mean it wasn't really in orbit at all and is a weird piece of hokum.)

I agree..great post..

By the way, what is that in your avatar? It looks like the TMP dude "running" for his life before VGR cloud got him at the start of the movie..but is that the actual prop or something?

Rob

 

[Praetor]

^FJ's tech manual shows "Star Fleet Headquarters," Starbase 1, and Starbase 2 in a triangular arrangement with Sol at the center, all about 5 parsecs (or about 16 light-years) from Sol. That's within Federation territory as FJ defines it, not a remote, neutral sector. The station in the FJ Tech Manual whose design resembles the orbital facility in the movie was called Star Fleet Headquarters, not Starbase 1.

I've seen fan/tie-in material that proposed a remote location for Starbase One, and I've seen material that put it in Earth orbit (including Articles of the Federation and other Trek fiction from Pocket Books). The Trek novel Invasion: Time's Enemy put it in Sol System's Oort Cloud, way out on the fringes of the system. There's no consensus. It was never established in canon, so naturally fans have made up all sorts of different interpretations for it.

Okay. What I meant was that the station in question that everyone was suggesting the one from the movie resembled was not in Earth orbit. I meant "neutral" as in not in the space of any one member government. It certainly looks to me in FJ's TM that that particular station is not in Earth orbit.

In Trek XI we see a Earth space station which is kind of reminiscent of the “Starfleet Headquarters” in Franz Joseph’s TOS tech manual.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/spacedock-trekxi-wallpaper.jpg

In the movie this station is referred as spacedock. Could spacedock as seen in Trek XI also exist in the Prime universe at the time of TOS, only to be supplanted by the mushroom cloud spacedock in the TOS movie era?

There's no reason to assume that they'd be "supplanted," either.

One of the biggest problems with Trek, both from the standpoint of fans and from the standpoint of those making the shows, has been to treat the Trek universe as being... well... kinda small.

Look around, just down here on Earth. In one country... in one state... hell, even in just one TOWN. There entire "trek universe" is really smaller than that. Just a handful of people, always running into each other at every turn. Just a couple of ships doing anything interesting. Just one "spacedock" at Earth.

I Like F.J's space station concept, though I do NOT accept it as "Starfleet Headquarters." I don't mind it being one of a series of starbase "standard designs" out there, and don't mind one or more of these having a "starfleet headquarters" facility inside (in the same sense that there are multiple "headquarters" operations for the Navy, dependent on which fleet or operational group you're talking about). But there's simply no way to have a spaceborne facility be anywhere nearly as secure and self-sufficient as a planetbound one could be. There are advantages to being in space, but the sort of things you really want from a "headquarters..." not so much.

So, let's just say we have several "F.J" style space stations... with at least one in the SOL system (based upon that design, I'd be inclined to put it near Jupiter, personally).

We know that there are a series of "mushroom" starbases throughout Federation space, with at least one in Earth orbit.

The interesting thing re: the ST-09 station is that it really has more in common with Probert's "space office complex" (albeit uber-over-sized) than with anything else we've seen.

I'd have no problem with it existing in Earth orbit, right alongside a few dozen other facilities. The assumption that there is "just one" is what I find so utterly silly.

I generally agree with these sentiments, Cary.

I personally dislike the idea of Starfleet Headquarters being a station in the middle of nowhere. One might argue that an isolated station might somehow be easier to defend than one orbiting a high-traffic planet, but to me that'd be like making NATO headquarters be on a man-made island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. To me, closer to other stuff = easier to keep an eye on. I'm fine with free-standing starbases, but not the Starfleet Headquarters.

Another thing that always bothered me about FJ's design was that each "section" seemed to try to create the feeling of being on a planet in a sort of ferris wheel fashion, with compartmentalized fake ceilings and "buildings" emerging from the separation bulkheads. That just seems... wasteful.