T O P I C ��� R E V I E W
|
Basill
|
posted
Hey guys. I don't know if there have been posts on this topic before, but since the search function is down I thought I would risk posting this anyway. I looked over the subject headings dealing with spacedock over the past year. The few I found didn't touch on my specific inquiry. If anyone has discussed this before, feel free to direct me to it. Otherwise here goes. Has anyone ever wondered if perhaps the large interior cavity of Earth's giant spacedock had a substantial atmosphere contained within? Evidence for this: 1. The spacedock spotlights, have a noticeable dispersion of the light in their beams. (although it is not as noticeable in TSFS). The fact that you can make them out as beams at all suggests some medium through which the light must pass, but these beams seem to be passing through a relatively dense atmospheric medium. I suspect this was done to augment the sense of scale inside the model. 2. The simple fact that the entire (and substantially huge) structure is an enclosed one (unlike say, dry-dock or McKinley station) with huge exterior doors that open and close. These doors are the only means of access or egress for the coming and going starships. Maybe the doors or their surrounding frame members house some type of force field technology that prevents the escape of atmospheric gases. We have known since at least The Motion Picture, that Starfleet has had some form of forcefield technology that allows large cavernous spaces to maintain atmosphere, even when exposed to the vacuum of space. In TMP the refit Enterprise in dry-dock had its landing bay doors open to space while workbees with cargo sleds entered from outside the ship, and crew members walked freely about the interior without the aid of environmental suits. If the case were the same for spacedock, it would be beneficial in that starship maintenance and repair could be carried out with more ease, comfort and efficiency; no bulky space suits. The only problem I might foresee with this scenario would be possible radiation contamination from the ships themselves. Who knows what kind of radiation hazards might arise from a ship's exhaust systems or plain and simple leaks. Something tells me that there would be contingencies for these problems though. So is it just me or is it reasonable to think that the spacedock mushroom might have a breathable interior space. Your thoughts.... ------------------ Just a thought...A grain of salt-season to taste-lather, rinse, repeat
|
Fructose
Member # 309
|
posted
It is possible. In ST VI, they say only thrusters are allowed in spacedock. Could be to help reduce 'atmospheric' damage. And it would make repairs and the like much easier. Sounds reasonable to me.------------------ It doesn't matter if you don't know what you're doing as long as you look good doing it.
|
Timo
Member # 245
|
posted
To take the opposite apporach, one could say that the atmosphere inside the enclosed spacedock consists solely of these noxious exhausts of thrusters, impulse engines, leaking shipboard atmospheric and waste recycling systems and the like.That is, the enclosed environment is desirable for a reason other than creating a breathable atmosphere (but we don't know the reason) and a toxic or at least unbreathable atmosphere results from the fact that starships are operating in this enclosed environment. No forcefield is applied over the big doors, but the existence of the doors themselves is sufficient to retain a light-scattering atmosphere inside the dock area, even if the area is vented to space every now and then. Timo Saloniemi
|
Basill
|
posted
Thanks guys.fructose1: I too had thought about the thruster only rule, but I didn't know if it was related to possible exhaust hazards or if they simply didn't want ships barreling out of spacedock so fast they take half the super structure with them. Timo: This is exactly the kind of counter-thought I wanted and it makes sense. Maybe that is why the spotlights are less "beam" like in TSFS, and much more noticeable in STIV and VI. Higher traffic means more emissions. However it still does not explain why the structure is even enclosed in the first place. Dry-docks, McKinley station, and DS9 were all dockable without having such elaborate and complete enclosures. Having such a huge closed off environment without any other obvious purpose screams wasteful and extraneous to me. Your thoughts... ------------------ Just a thought...A grain of salt-season to taste-lather, rinse, repeat
|
Black Knight
Member # 134
|
posted
The respons to that that seems the most plausible to me is that it is used for defensive purposes. Unlike some of the drydocks, the Stardock might have some awesome firepower and defensive capababilities to it. An enclosed structure could mean a more stable defensive shield, and it could also help protect other ships from weapons fire.-------------------- Quantum Threshold--Redesigned! Avalon Sector--Redesigned!
|
Masao
Member # 232
|
posted
I have to agree that there's really no good reason to have a breathable atmosphere in Spacedock. The only possible advantage is so people working on the outside of a ship's hull don't have to wear spacesuits. But filling spacedock with air would cause a lot of problems, including those mentioned earlier of noxious gases emitted by ships. I think the biggest problem would simply be dealing with that enormous volume of air. I'd bet that an air-filled spacedock is the largest such structure in existence. It probably has it's own weather system. There would have to be some massive system for filtering, heating (or cooling), humidifying (or dehumidifying), and recirculating all that air. The oxygen in the air can also support growth of fungi and bacteria as well as fires. Finally, starships (and workbees) are designed to work in a vacuum so I'm not sure whether or how they would operate in a denser environment. Station-keeping within spacedock would also be more difficult because of air currents.I think the "atmospheric haze" is just an attempt to give a sense of scale. They probably also provide atmospheric haze even for scenes in space. ------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
|
Timo
Member # 245
|
posted
One thing I would like to believe about the Spacedock is that it is ancient. In no case should it be something that was built between ST2 and ST3, even if it seemed to "appear" between those movies.The structure should date back at least to the birth of the Federation, or parts of it should at least. Then we could assume that the enclosed environment was created in order to protect the ships inside from things like thermal stresses, micrometeoroid (mainly lost nuts, bolts and spanners) bombardment and radiation while they are being services. Modern starships are of course impervious to mere thermal stresses, and the enclosing is currently more of a hindrance than an asset. In case your starbase is attacked, you don't want to protect the ships inside. You want to deploy them as soon as possible, so that they are of some use to you. Having them emerge from a few cramped doors makes them sitting ducks for the attacker. This idea of the Spacedock being an old structure has an obvious weakness: we know of at least three big deep-space starbases that share the shape if not the size. Supposedly these are newer than the Earth Spacedock. But perhaps the increased size of the stations and thus of the exit doors negates some of the problems. And perhaps the environment near these stations poses some special risks even to modern starships, against which enclosing is needed. Timo Saloniemi
|
Austin Powers
Member # 250
|
posted
Masao: I agree that filling this thing with air seems difficult to say the least. But think of a structure like the Dyson Sphere from "Relics". In comparison, the mushroom Spacedock is like a grain of sand. How could they possibly have filled that up with an atmosphere? Even with all the oxygen-producing plant-life inside the sphere this must have taken centuries at least.Anyway, I also think they just did the beam of light for effect, not thinking that we would start theorizing about the scientific background. ------------------ RIMMER [as Ace]: "Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas."
|
Shipbuilder
Member # 69
|
posted
Another possibility for pressurized atmosphere is the obvious benefit to structural integrity. Many aerospace fuel tanks are designed to support loads only if they are pressurized.I suppose a version of the SIF field mentioned in TNGTM could account for this better than pressurizing the interior volume, but I think its still a valid point. If I had to guess tho, I'd say it wasn't pressurized basically because the ships aren't designed to operate in an air environment so why "store" them in one?
|
Sol System
Member # 30
|
posted
It's highly unlikely the Dyson sphere was filled with air, aside from a relatively thin blanket over the habitable region. For one thing, the sound would be deafening.------------------ love's function is to fabricate unknownnness -- E. E. Cummings **** Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! And party everyday.
|
TSN
Member # 31
|
posted
That, and the air near the star would be superheated...------------------ "It's like the Star of David or something. But without the whole Judaism thing." -Frank Gerratana, 17-Aug-2000
|
jrp19
|
posted
As to why space dock would have the mushroom shaped cavity at is top. The space dock is basically a construction shack a proverbial womb for starships the enterprise D was constructed inside the one orbiting Mars. Its function is to protect starships during there initial construction/deconstruction, when they Are vulnerable to heat stress micrometeors and solar radiation.(This would explain why NCC-1701 and the Excelsior were both in it in ST3, NCC-1701 to be decommissioned and The Exellceor having just been completed)As to atmosphere. The waste gas idea seems the most plausible and not all that harmful since star ships moving in and out would expel very little in the way of gasses that could easily be filtered out. PS the cover would also thwart any attempts at telescopic observation.
|
Dat
Member # 302
|
posted
Then how do you explain the Enterprise in Spacedock in ST6, or how come she wasn't there in ST:TMP. Or how about the Ent-D at Starbase 74?------------------ [Bart's looking for his dog.] Groundskeeper Willy: Yeah, I bought your mutt - and I 'ate 'im! [Bart gasps.] I 'ate 'is little face, I 'ate 'is guts, and I 'ate the way 'e's always barkin'! So I gave 'im to the church. Bart: Ohhh, I see... you HATE him, so you gave him to the church. Groundskeeper Willy: Aye. I also 'ate the mess he left on me rug. [Bart stares.] Ya heard me! [This message has been edited by PopMaze (edited September 15, 2000).]
|
Teelie
Member # 280
|
posted
I don't see defense as a reason myself. Filling the sucker with air is also out, keeping the emissions in seems plausible except why. I guess because of the proximity to an inhabitated planet.------------------ Where's the bathroom on this ship?
|
Timo
Member # 245
|
posted
I also think that Spacedock is not a ship construction facility at all. It's far too "clean" for that. There are those smooth walls, simple piers, comfortable lounges for those waiting for starships to arrive... And no trace of construction machinery or work-in-progress. If Spacedock is primarily an "airport in orbit", a facility only designed to handle the "passenger interface" of starships, then the enclosed nature could be simple aesthetics. Perhaps the facility is civilian, even, with Starfleet just operating a pier or two? The structure could be Earth's primary spaceport, and would mostly handle passenger liners and the like. This would also help explain why Kirk and pals flew a "civilian" shuttle (no Starfleet markings, but instead a UFP logo plus a NAR registry) to the station in ST6. They simply took the "regular" transportation instead of the "military" one, perhaps because Starfleet prefers to give its personnel vouchers to civilian flights instead of maintaining a dedicated passenger shuttle that has few military uses (the "Generations" rescue being one of the few). And since some civilian passengers prefer old-fashioned shuttles to transporters, the shuttles are kept as a sales gimmick. Or then public transporters back in the days of ST6 simply weren't all that good, and shuttles were the preferred means of transportation of medium to large groups of people, unless there was an emergency. Timo Saloniemi Timo Saloniemi
|
Malnurtured Snay
Member # 411
|
posted
You know ... that could explain it very well ... I imagine all Federation Starbases serve Federation civillians to some extent, tho (just look at DS9). ------------------ My roomate is a stupid, often-drunk, country-listening, non-cleaning, non-choring redneck ... kill him now ...
|
Matrix
Member # 376
|
posted
What about the Starbase 74 base? That is obviously not ancient. It's basically the Spacedock in ST 3 but 3-4 times larger. ------------------ Predict the unpredictable, but how do you unpredict the unpredictable?
|
Nim
Member # 205
|
posted
I heard someone say that impulse engines don't work in atmospheres. If that's true then it's settled, what with the 1701-A leaving under impulse in ST:VI.------------------ Ready for the action now, Dangerboy Ready if I'm ready for you, Dangerboy Ready if I want it now, Dangerboy? How dare you, dare you, Dangerboy? How dare you, Dangerboy? I dare you, dare you, Dangerboy... �on Flux, "Thanatophobia"
|
Timo
Member # 245
|
posted
It's not all that clear if impulse engines work in atmospheres or not. All we know is that in DS9 "The Siege", two impulse-powered interceptors chased Kira's "sub-impulse" (thruster-only?) craft, and Kira claimed that taking the battle down to the atmosphere of Bajor would even the odds.Perhaps Kira was not speaking specifically of impulse engines. Perhaps she just meant that atmospheric stresses would impose a common speed limit for both types of vessels? Or perhaps the small sub-impulse raider would fare better when deeper in the gravity well of the planet? Also, it seems that impulse engines can be used in some types of atmospheres at least. Starships dip into the upper atmospheres of planets now and then, and maneuver at impulse. The Defiant went down into a gas giant in "Starship Down", and I believe impulse travel was at least implied. And the Voyager has battled atmospheric storms at impulse in at least "Tattoo". So perhaps one should just say that impulse engines suffer severe performance limitations in atmospheres: so if there is an alternate propulsion system available, it should be used. But if no alternative exists, impulse engines can be used, even though they no longer are a superior form of Newtonian propulsion. Why won't an impulse engine perform well in a thick atmosphere? Well, one might surmise the engine uses an extremely high-speed jet in order to expend as little mass as possible, and thus to keep propellant tank size down. A low-mass-flow, relativistic-speed jet would have trouble pushing against atmospheric pressure, while a slower jet of greater mass flow would suffer less problems. Also, the mass-reducing subspace thingamabobs in the impulse engines might not like atmospheres. One wonders if the common and robust antigravs of Trek work on some other principle than subspace mass masking - often they simply seem to lift objects without reducing their inertial mass. Perhaps mass reduction is not possible within an atmosphere at all? Timo Saloniemi
|
|