Where was Kirk's Enterprise built?

[BillJ]

1). "Our vessel was constructed in space and has never felt the solidity of the surface of a planet." - Star Trek Writer & Director's Guide (Bible) by Gene Roddenberry (April 17, 1967).

2). "The unit components were built at the Star Fleet Division of what is still called the San Francisco Navy Yards, and the vessel was assembled in space. The Enterprise is not designed to enter the atmosphere of a planet and never lands on a planet surface." - The Making of Star Trek by Stephen E. Whitfield & Gene Roddenberry (Del Rey, 1968).

You should be honest and acknowledge the reason this creative decision was made (and the transporter created), they couldn't afford the landing effects weekly on a TV budget. I'm pretty sure that nugget of information is in The Making of Star Trek as well.

So we didn't have a decision that was driven by science or creativity, but by the realities of producing weekly TV.

 

[T'Girl]

All true geosynchronous orbits are equatorial.

That's incorrect, you seem to be only considering a "free orbit" or a unpowered orbit. Also, such a geosynchronous orbit might place the surface outside of maximum transporter range for the TOS Enterprise.

There's no way to orbit "above San Francisco."

Yes there is. A geosynchronous orbit is where an object has a period of rotation synchronous with that of the Earth's rotation. If a object is held in position by tractor beams or is under power (or something else), then it can hold position above San Fransisco. As the surface of the Earth revolve around Earth's axis, so does San Fransisco, and so does the object above the city.

 

[Albertese]

I think that when we're talking about geosynchronous/-stationary orbits, we are by definition talking about natural, unpowered orbits.

I don't think the distance to GEO is an obstacle for transporters. The TNG Tech manual gives us a range of 40,000 km, and the DS9 TM claims that the Cardassian units, as well as most everyone else's units are similar. I don't think we have any solid reason to assume the TOS transporters were severely limited by comparison, as the transporter seems to be very mature technology already. (Indeed thanks to Enterprise we know it to be more than a century old.) And GEO is 35,768 km from mean sea level which is well within a 40,000 km range.

Having said all that, it does seem that when a starship enters "standard orbit," that it is a powered orbit. Any time a ship loses power in orbit ("The Naked Time," "Court Martial") it starts to fall down. If it were in a natural orbit, this wouldn't be such an imminent problem when it happens. If powered orbits are good enough for starships, I suppose they could be good enough for docks and yards. But I know if I were in charge, I would rather depend on natural physics instead of machinery I hope stays so reliable.

--Alex

 

[MGagen]

Alex,

I think we're on the same page. And as I said before, I only brought it up because some folks who don't understand orbital mechanics were talking like there was some magic orbit that could keep the station directly above San Fran at all times.

Personally, I tend to think the San Francisco Yards name was purely an honorific. I don't think it is meant to imply any proximity to the namesake city at all. It makes far more sense to have it nearer to the earth than a geosynchronous orbit. After all, the less distance you have to lift construction materials, the better.

M.

 

[Maurice]

I was wondering is an inclined orbit of 37.77 degrees would always be visible from the ground. So I made up this diagram:...

Image. Too. Big.

 

[Albertese]

I was wondering is an inclined orbit of 37.77 degrees would always be visible from the ground. So I made up this diagram:...

Image. Too. Big.

Apologies, my friend. I usually resize the images down before I upload them, but I forgot to this time. I would go back to replace it with a smaller sized image but I guess it's been too long as my "Edit" button is gone.

It won't happen again! *cowers*

--Alex