Anyone ever notice that in the satellite imagery shot of Utopia Planitia's ground-based facility (lower right hand pic in link) the structures inside the box seem to be a Galaxy-class Saucer on the left, Engineering section right and two warp nacelles above and below it?
Was there ever a hint from Sternbach/Okuda as to what this was supposed to be? A static prototype maybe, something to do fit checks with? Shouldn't be space-rated components, since they look almost completed and the UP drydocks have repeatedly shown assembly primarily occurs in orbit.
I can see the saucer, anyway... But the rest of the base looks rather off in scale.
Mark
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Vaguely, but I dount it's intenional, That top riht pic loks like something I once had growing n a tupperware dish in my fridge.
Coincidence, or was my moldy meal the basis for a secret Starfleet instilation? You make the call.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I see the saucer - on the left and the nacelles are at the top right and bottom right corners of that 'square' compound.
Heheheh maybe it's the Trinculo. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Perhaps they tested whether a Galaxy can land in one piece, and when the answer was found to be "nope", they built a really really high concrete wall around the site to keep the press out?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Heheheh! Maybe some whales guiding the ship decided to beach themselves.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yeah, maybe one frequency of the subspace sensor arrays interferes with the whales' navigation senses...
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Here's a zoomed-in comparison, courtesy Shippy:
Mark
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Thanks for the upload Mark.
So who would have been responsible for this graphic at this time during TNG? Sternbach was/is big on Mars-scapes, but I don't remember anybody ever questioning him or any of the other folks that actually took questions from fans at that time? Just curious to find out what, if any story, there was behind this image?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
It's an uncanny likeness. Is it possible that they simply used an Ent D model to make the model for the barely visible ground facility, simply needing something that would look like buildings at a glance? The saucer does appear to have sections of hull missing suggesting that it's not completed. But I see no use in constructing a starship of that size on the surface. How would they get it into orbit?
What about the 4 long rectangular structures in the upper right corner? Could they be nacelles?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Rick can be asked directly about these things; both he and Mike still read the trekbbs.com site from time to time (less so now that neither is employed by the franchise).
Mark
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Could it be a training facility, much like the Navy and Air Force use ships and aircraft frames for training for damage control and firefighting? Better to train in an atmosphere where an accident may not lead to having a vacuum bath.
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
That might be plausible, but the components are separated...which wouldn't be as useful for training purposes. It's almost like it could be some kind of internal fit model (but why would you need two warp nacelles in that case?)
You can almost make out the unfinished parts of the saucer like Aban suggested. Although we've never seen it, maybe larger components "can" be assembled on the surface if it's lower than 1g? Lifted with a tractor beam from orbit, up to the UP yards for fitting out? Or towed up by smaller starships?
I may step over to bbs and give the question a shot over there. Anxious to find out what the intent was, if there was one.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
This reminds me a LOT of the rocket museums they have in Houston and Huntsville:
Note that they have a Saturn V on display... Disassembled.
Anyway, there's nothing to say that you CAN'T , or DON'T build GCS components on the ground and then heft them into orbit. We've never really seen a starship BUILT at UP, have we? Only under repair, or arguably being fitted out for active duty (Voyager et. al.). Would it make more sense to build a starship's major components in atmosphere, or (as the tech manuals imply) to build them wholesale in orbit?
There's a fairly lackluster early DS9 novel that deals with the reactivation of the Bajoran shipyards after the Cardassians left it. In particular, they were tasked with building an older-model Federation starship, the Ambassador-class USS Hannibal, from the keel up as a test to see if they could support Starfleet designs. It was a gound-based facility that used massive tractor beams to launch a completed starship into orbit upon completion. A lofty concept (sic), but not wholly impossible these days...
Mark
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Getting something to the surface or up to space requires overcoming only 1 gravity on Earth (even less on Mars, of course). That doesn't seem like much. An impulse engine that can get you up a quarter of light speed in a few seconds should have be able to handle that. A SIF able to hold a ship together with that kind of accleration and shields that can deflect nuclear explosions should be able to deal with the heat and forces of re-entry or take off.
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
WOW! That was quick! Here is the response from Mike Okuda over on TrekBBS.
NEW Star Trek ship building news after this long? Didn't expect that. Maybe now Rick will be encouraged to chime in.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Hey, you caught a good one here. Directly quoting Mike:
Yes, that was the intent [to have construction on the surface of Mars], although I like the suggestion that it might have been a training facility. It was something that Rick and I put together in Photoshop. I don't recall exactly who did what, but I remember that the upper image uses a bunch of simple paper models that we made for use as a generic futuristic city buildings for exactly this sort of image. Rick may remember more about this.
I do recall that we wondered how the components would be brought into orbit, whether they'd be beamed up, hauled up by space elevator, or carried by a huge orbital tug.
The training facility idea has some merit, though I question what use a 1/1 scale replica would be, given that there were supposedly so few GCS in the first place, AND the simple fact that you'd have a holodeck to accomplish most of it anyway. Mind you, that could just as easily be a Nebula-class ship down there... In any case, I prefer the "build on ground, bring to orbit" approach, allowing a ship to be largely integrated under shirtsleeve conditions and finalized in space once the major structural work had been finished.
Mark
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Thanks, actually surprised it already hasn't been discussed.
Unless that big square has a clear roof over it,assembly would be a nightmare in such a dusty environment.
Of course it is a "spy satellite" view so we could be seeing a false color image of some type of penetrating imagery. This may be one of "dispersed" Galaxy-class spaceframes (although not located in a very remote secton of the Federation)
Since the TNGTM pretty clearly implies assembly was done in orbit for several major assemblies, I'd have to say this is some type of structural test article. Lots of testing went on for materials, structures, full-up systems prior to integration on the actual ships so what better place to run those tests/fit checks than on some type of high-fidelity ground based model.
If the supposed NCC-71099 Challenger backstory aligns up with the real Space Shuttle Challenger we may be looking at the U.S.S. Challenger on Mars. (for reference: OV-099 was actually a static test article prior to buildup to an actual space-rated shuttle and someone suggested that was why the USS Challenger had a lower NCC number than the other Galaxy's)
Alittle on air officialdom could have gone along way with this one. Even though it was from a parallel universe episode, I don't see any reason to think it wasn't intended to be there in our universe.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Yup. I can accept it either way, really. Heck, that could be THE Challenger down there, for all we know.
As for the Martian dust (or fines, depending on which nomenclature you want to use), one would think that terraforming the place would allow for humanoid comfort levels to be maintained. Putting enough water in the air would certainly help.
Mark
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I like the idea that the ship was built on surface... for some reason I couldn't imagine just building an entire ship in open space just like building an entire ship in the Pacific. Remember by the time "Parallels" aired it was 2370 and in Voyager's episode "Relativity" there were several Galaxy Class starships being finished in orbit of Utopia Planitia in 2371... perhaps they just brought out the other hull components to start making more ships. Hell, the Defiant was stored in UP... where else would Starfleet put her... right next to a Galaxy Class spaceframe on the surface.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
As to the number of ships being constructed at that time - "Relativity"/"Parallels" - Maybe there was intelligence about the Dominion... Season 7 TNG coincided with Season 2 DS9 and the Dominion had indeed been alluded to enough - that the omnipresent Section 31 might have known a bit about them to realise that they were a threat. Although it still might be the efforts of the Federation to replace the 39 starships that were lost at Wolf 359.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't know why you'd build a spacecraft on a planet if you didn't have to, though.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Well, if the ships need to be built in zero g, Starfleet could probably nullify the planets gravity in the area where contruction happens. This would allow construction to happen in an area where they don't have to worry about oxygen for workers and takes away any accedents involving compression.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I don't know why you'd build a spacecraft on a planet if you didn't have to, though.
Because it's easier and less dangerous than building them in space: no need for spacesuits, no need to worry about simple accidents causing hull breaches, vacuum exposure, or any one of the many other nasty things that can happen up in space.
Taking into account what we know about the Federation's level of technology at the time of the episode Mars could either be completely terraformed (in which case the ships could be built by construction crews just breathing the local air) or the construction bays could be within pressurised forcefields. They also have antigrav technology, presumably the entire shipyard area on the surface of the planet could be a variable gravity area, set to whatever they need. Hell, within those shipyards they might well work in microgee conditions.
I can see planetside construction being a whole lot simpler, especially on a planet that's M class or close enough to be used by air-breathing life: no need to maintain orbital habitats, less chance of things going wrong, easier to get crews in to work on sections of the ship being built, and easy to get up into orbit once finished by using a combination of tractor beams, variable gravity environments and even shuttles.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
That's daft. No, sorry, but it is. Building a ship on the surface of a planet makes no sense whatever. Why build these massive structures designed to exist in space in a gravity field, which would require some heavy shoring-up to counteract gravitational forces acting on it in on direction only? And not all the planets they might build ships on would have Mars' one-third gravity; and we don't really know what level the Martian atmosphere has reached by that time. Never seen anything to indicate Mars is now a shirtsleeve environment.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: That's daft. No, sorry, but it is. Building a ship on the surface of a planet makes no sense whatever. Why build these massive structures designed to exist in space in a gravity field, which would require some heavy shoring-up to counteract gravitational forces acting on it in on direction only? And not all the planets they might build ships on would have Mars' one-third gravity; and we don't really know what level the Martian atmosphere has reached by that time. Never seen anything to indicate Mars is now a shirtsleeve environment.
Daft? Why thank you! I almost always aim for daft but never quite manage to hit it, nice to know my aim was true here. Daft. I like that. I should use that more in meetings. Has a nice ring to it.
The Federation has the ability to maniulate local gravity conditions: we have seen that time and again on Star Trek. They can generate artificial gravity, have antigrav technology and obviously have some pretty serious game when it comes to manipulating spacetime. For a culture that has developed as far as the Federation has technologically, I would think that making an area zero-g would be easy enough.
Therefore, they would set the gravity within the shipyards to whatever level they need it to be: microgee, or whatever. If the planet had a breathable atmosphere then fine. If not, enclose an area with forcefields (which seems to be a standard use of the technology, from what we have seen) and pump in the air. Easier to get the construction crews to and from work: no need to use energy transporting them up, shuttling them up or maintaining extensive orbital facilities to house them for long periods of time. Same for raw materials and fabricated components. And all the time the construction crews don't need to work in a dangerous, inhospitable and insanely lethal environment like space.
So...given the Federation's level of technology I would think that whatever planet they build on they could set the local gravity conditions to favour their construction efforts. Note that I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a space-based side to the shipbuilding as well - that would be daft, wouldn't it? - there will be components that will need to be fitted in space, probably because of testing conditions or other technical issues. Still, the bulk of the "grunt work" - building the frame, assembling the internal structure, putting the major pieces together...no reason why they shouldn't take place on a planet if the Federation's technology makes it safer and easier to do so.
Of course, they might well build the whole thing in space. I just think that they might have a ground-based side to it. Wasn't there a DS9 novel featuring a starship being built on the surface of Bajor? Usual canon issues apply of course, but it at least hints at the point that someone else out there has toyed with the idea, loved the inherent daftness and ran with it. If memory serves me the ship was an Ambassador class and was going to be called the Opaka...wish I could remember the name of the book now.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
Aha! Think I have found it, so forgive the old double post. The book was, I think, "Antimatter" by John Vornholt...been ages since I read a Trek book, but this seems to ring a bell somewhere in the synapses. Anyone read it recently? Got a better recollection of the story?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Using antigravity to cancel out gravity just seems crazy backwards. There's no reason to think the Federation has problems building things in space.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Exactly. It's not just the gravity, I can think of all kinds of adverse conditions the Martian atmosphere could throw up, and they could just as easily apply to any planet you'd care to site a shipyard on. I think y'all have got a bit too blas� about scenes of Voyager and assorted NXes flitting about the atmosphere; all the gravity-nullifying in the world isn't going to make a GCS, with its huge saucer and relatively-thin neck, handle atmospheric transit or a gravity well. All so construction people don't have to wear spacesuits? Get real.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Also, if the ships were built on the surface of the planet, that would suggest that the SanFransico yards have a similar facility.
I know that we realy have not seen enough of the 24th century Earth to go either way with this, but I don't think so somehow.
Another thing, building planetside limits the amount you can build by a massive degree.
All in all, nice idea but no cigar.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: All so construction people don't have to wear spacesuits? Get real.
Now it might just be me, but I find a comment like "get real" quite amusing when used in the context of a discussion about starship construction facilities on Mars. FTL we can handle. Antimatter torpedoes? Easy. Phased beam weapons? Piece of piss. Sentient computers? Yeah, ok. Sentient holograms? Fine. Sentient SOLID holograms? Fine and dandy-o.
Assembling a major structure on a planet? Get real. Really, it has a comedic beauty all it's own.
Anyways, I think local atmospheric conditions wouldn't be a problem - I would assume a forcefield would be able to shield the inside from the outside, otherwise you've just got a pretty crap forcefield. After all they do use them on ships in space to keep the air in, right? I assume they could also somehow be used to keep stuff out. Otherwise you might as well just have some lights set into the wall and a guy behind it making "hmmmmm" sounds with a comb and paper (or a kazoo) to make the whole "forcefield" effect complete.
As for being blas� about atmospheric shots, I don't think I am: I'm just openminded about what a huge culture like the Federation might be capable of. They're not the biggest power seen in "Trek" but they're very advanced, technologically: why should a Federation shipyard resemble anything even close to our understanding of the word? What if they replicate ships from scratch? Grow them in nanonic clusters? Have a programmable fluidic metal that sorts itself into a rigid shape when directed? Have them built by robots? Ok so these are off the top of my head and might not work in a Trek universe, but I think there is too much of a tendency to view the Federation - and by extension it's background, culture and methodology - as basically the 20th century with cooler guns and blinky lights. If there's a tendency to become blas� about anything, it's there.
As for the Galaxy class's thin neck and performance in a gravity well...this would the the same class of ship that hid inside the chromosphere of a star in "I, Borg" wouldn't it? The same class of ship that hung around for a while damned close to another star in "Descent, part 2" and worked to stir up a solar flare? That flew very near a star to dump a garbage freighter? ("Final Mission") (y'all get some of that there gravity stuff near a star, don'tcha?) The same class of ship that has dipped into atmosphere to flush out an enemy target ("Arsenal of Freedom" and ok, just the battle section, but still...) The same class of ship that has braved transwarp conduits, trans-quadrant travel courtesy of Q which spun it around on it's axis incredibly quickly, all sorts...the Galaxy class doesn't strike me as being particularly fragile, considering all we have seen it handle on screen.
Besides, I think it would be good if the construction people didn't have to wear spacesuits. Bad enough having a wedgie or an itch in an inconvenient place, but having that for 8 hours in a spacesuit hammering hull sections on with nails? Wow, that's harsh.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: Also, if the ships were built on the surface of the planet, that would suggest that the SanFransico yards have a similar facility.
I know that we realy have not seen enough of the 24th century Earth to go either way with this, but I don't think so somehow.
The SF yards might well have similar facilities. I don't think that they would build the entire ship down there and launch it complete, but there is enough room for speculation for it to be a possibility that some aspects of the construction are handled planetside.
You're right though, there is really not enough data on 24th century Earth to go on, and all we see are the heroes who could just as easily exist today, there are no real indications that these people are culturally different from you or I, which is unlikely given 400 years of social development.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
No, Fawny, I repeat, it's a daft idea, and you're a daft person obviously trying to make a name for himself. I suggest you rein in your little jibes or I might start taking it personally.
There are plenty of reasons why there'd be the components of a GCS emplaced in a shipyard. But to go off on this thing about how this "obviously" means all ships are built planetside is (there's that word again) daft. Two-dozen-plus known ship classes, how many have a proven-onscreen ability to land? Not counting shuttles and runabouts, I can think of, er, one. Two if you include the Insurrection Holoship. And all the orbital construction facilities we've seen onscreen easily trump one single Photoshop image from. . . thirteen? . . . years ago.
To build a ship on the ground would require massive gravity-nullification, plus constant and rapidly-shifting and evolving Structural-Integrity field application. Copntrast that with building in a zero- or micro-gravity environment, where occasionally people need to wear spacesuits.
Yes, occasionally. You think they got people with wrenches in there installing all those corridors one panel at a time? It's all modular, probably fabricated in industrial-size replicators! You couldn't build these ships without massive automation, the image of thousands of grease-monkeys swarming over a ship, building it with their bare hands, is one I don't buy.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: No, Fawny, I repeat, it's a daft idea, and you're a daft person obviously trying to make a name for himself. I suggest you rein in your little jibes or I might start taking it personally.
You know I have typed, retyped and retyped again replies to this for about 15 minutes now. They range from amazed to derisive to angry and hit pretty much all the points in between. However after thinking about it for a bit and having a cup of tea, the main point I want to get across is calm down. We're on a science fiction board, talking about fictional construction techniques, and there is absolutely no need to get angry about this. For goodness sake, we're sci-fi fans - there are enough people lining up out there in the big bad world to steal our lunch money without us turning on one another like "Lord of the Flies" with pocket protectors. ;-)
I'm willing to extend the old olive branch and apologise if you found any of my comments offensive or felt they were directed at you as anything other than good natured banter. However looking at your comments over this thread - including "daft", "get real" and "you're a daft person" (not to mention the wonderful "trying to make a name" and "taking it personally" lines) I don't think you can honestly say the same. Still, I apologise if you thought even for a moment I was being rude.
As for the issue at hand, it's open to individual speculation and since this thread doesn't seem to be going down the road of accommodating that, maybe it's as well to stop here. Which is a pity because I was genuinely having fun with this one and had plenty more points to make in reply to yours. Besides, when it comes down to it there is the image on screen, and Mike Okuda's reply seems to point to it being a construction facility (though he does say he likes the idea of it being a training facility too) and so that leaves enough room for me to think that it might just be possible to factor in some planetside construction phases alongside the ones taking place in space. Anything after that is speculation on the part of individual fans.
Finally, I'm not too sure what you mean about the "obviously" thing. I've checked back and as far as I can see I used the word once - and that was when I was talking about the Federation having the ability to manipulate spacetime. Given that they have million ton starships going FTL all over the place I think that's a pretty safe bet, but I didn't use the word past that, so I am not sure where you're going with this. Which is why I'm pointing it out. Obviously.
Again, apologies for any comments that you might have taken out of context, but I think we both need to be the bigger men here and see that until someone posts here who has an advanced degree in starship construction (with a possible second elective in planet-based forcefield applications) then we might just have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of a fascinating, diverse, advanced, interesting but above all fictional universe.
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Ok, back on topic here.
Here's a quote from the TNGTM "On June 3, 2350, the first two spaceframe components, the Deck 10 computer core elliptical compression member and the starboard main longitudinal compression bulkhead, were gamma-welded during a brief ceremony at the Utopia Planitia assembly site 16,625 kilometers above the surface of Mars, in synchronous orbit"
Obviously, this quote is describing on-orbit assembly of key hardware components. This jives with the scene from Relativity where we see some major skin and frame construction going on in-orbit. I still think we're dealing with some type of test article down on the surface.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
You're right, sorry. Shouldn't have taken it off topic like that, I hold my hands up to that one.
The TNGTM would seem to point to space-based construction right enough...maybe if the planet-based one is a test article it is within an environment that can simulate all the conditions the ship is expected to weather. They could test stress handling, radiation absorption, all sorts, without having to build a ship in orbit and fly it around to expose it to natural phenomena. After all the square around the GCS components in the image has to represent some kind of structure: why not a test range?
As for why it's in parts...maybe it was being removed and a new hull brought in for testing. Yeah, that works for me.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Individual interpretation is all very well, but there has to be a point where we all agree. And, Like I said, I just don't buy the idea of all ships being built planetside. One or two, maybe, for testbed purposes (and, yes, training) but I'd bet those components were never intended to be merged, let along the completed ship boosted to space.
(in fact, logically, if that was an early prototype, wouldn't it really be a Nebula, not a Galaxy?)
Nonsensical things like "San Francisco Fleet Yards" aside, all evidence we've seen suggests ships are constructed in orbital facilities. My belief is that the pro-to-con ratio of orbital assembly outweighs (and may even be the inverse of) the pro-to-con ratio of building them on terra firma.
I'm as fond of argument as anyone else here, but sometimes we need to be realistic (as realistic as you can be when talking about fictional ships in a make-believe show!). Mike'n'Rick created this single little image twelve or thirteen years ago. Back then the idea of people freeze-framing their VCRs hardly occurred to them, let alone the concept of DVD screengrabs. It's a trifle, something done on a whim, I doubt they intended to imply that all ships are built on the ground. There can't be any resolution to this question. It's a discovery notified over subspace, a Yamato registry, a James R Kirk. You can still debate the question, God knows we've little enough else to talk about these days, but don't be surprised if I occasionally call you a silly billy! 8)
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
A Nebula would not be a suitable test article for a Galaxy. That defeats the purpose of being a prototype since there are some pretty distinct differences structurally (alteast in the Engineering Section). Of course it depends on what was being tested. If it wasn't stresses, loads, etc it may not require a structural-type test article.
That being said, and as its been pointed out, that could be a Nebula in the image for all we know and I put the wrong title on this
I think its more than trifle though, since they actually took the time to make a drawing and discuss some facets of it between themselves. Or maybe it is a symptom of Trek Tech Starvation syndrome. Either way, it's something to talk about.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
And I would point out that "Parallels" happens after the publication of the TNG:TM, which happened the the foruth season. And remember, a fifth season Voyager episode does quite clearly show this:
There are plenty of arguments for and against building stuff in orbit or on the ground. I see no reason to completely rule out either; here we have potential evidence and rationalization from the tech advisors at the time, that at least some components of larger starships are built on the ground. I'm more comfy now with the notion that the main superstructure could be assembled on the ground, then moved upstairs for integration and fitting out. Could be a prototype, or a test article too; but either way, I think we're looking at some of construction facility on the surface. Why else would the bad guys be looking right at it, as mentioned in dialogue?
Mark
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Ist das foto auf der enslisch version auch? Mein Deutsch ist ein wenig rostig (aber es war Spa� versuchend, den �Galaxy Klass' Artikel zu lesen
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
A little more discussion from Mike O. from over on trekbbs on the subject:
"It [surface construction] certainly would be difficult, and I personally think that it would be more likely that the major component assembly would be done in orbit. I believe that Rick felt this way, too.
Still, impulse engines routinely accelerate starship masses (many tens, even hundreds of thousands of tons) to large fractions of the speed of light in very brief times. This suggests a propulsion technology many thousands of times more powerful than anything we have in the 21st century. Also, structural integrity fields would need to protect against these accelerations, which conservatively would exceed 1,000 gees. As a result, I'd contend that lifting major starship components into orbit from the surface of Mars would be well within the reach of Star Trek's postulated technology.
-Mike "
Nice to see he still checks in on things.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Ginger: Shut up. We speak CANADIAN here, man.
Shippy: So yeah, even Mike's on board with at least the possibility. Hell, the last episodes of Enterprise show a pretty massive mining base pick up from the moon and land on Mars with no real trouble. I still think we're looking at a construction yard. Maybe not a PRODUCTION yard, but it's absolutely a Utopia Planitia facility.
Mark
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I still say it's storage... where would you store a ship hull not in use? Where would the Defiant be stored at?
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
You keep ships in shipyards. They keep scrap ships at Qualor II, why can't they keep newer ships in shipyards?
While the idea of a training facility has merit, I don't think they'd build a training facility like that. Why go through the expense of building both nacelles, for example? It'd also create problems in training exercises if you had to go from the saucer to the engineering hull.
It'd make more sense for a training facility to be laid out like a completed Galaxy class, not broken in sections. Or just the key facilities. No need for a training facility to be the exact size with all the crew quarters, etc... of a Galaxy class ship.
Of course, holodecks would be a lot more simpler and easier to use for training. They take up less room and can easily be configured or updated for whatever ship you are training on.
What did Utopia Planetia look like in "Booby Trap"? Did we get to see outsde any windows on the Holodeck simulation?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Yeah. They were just on the inside of the "mushroom" starbase from STIII et. al., with a mostly complete GCS sitting outside.
Mark
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Well, that explains it... she had breast implants by the time she joined Crossing Jordan.
So the Enterprise was inside the orbital facility... perhaps after creating the hull pieces on the surface and welding them together in an orbital drydock at UP.
That still wouldn't explain why the have pieces of a Galaxy Class on the surface, aside as storage.
BTA... aren't the industrial replicators large enough now to replicate escape pods/shuttlepods?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I doubt industrial replicators can produce large, working vehicles, like that. Chunks of them for assembly? Sure. A working escape pod? Probably not.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
How large have those industrial replicators gotten?
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Oh my.
No, but one possibility we may be overlooking is a more aesthetic answer? Like Utopia Planitia is looking to build a ground complex that reflects the scope of their achievements in ship-building at the orbital facilities. So maybe they build themselves the coolest office-building EVAR and make it look like a GCS saucer and assorted hull bits. Maybe? Because I could actually see that happening (esp. where any Scandinavian architects might be involved.)
Because while it might be plausible to assemble these structures on the ground, and it might be possible to lift them into orbit, and while that might even have some marginal safety advantage, it is, at heart, a profoundly silly idea. I'm siding with Lee on this one (minus 80% of the n00Bashing, it's his job, you see). Yes it's an interesting idea, and obviously has given us something to discuss, but I just don't see it.
Because it really wouldn't make sense, even if you could, to assemble this stuff on the ground only to lob it into the sky. Not on the scale of these vessels. There's not even any particularly compelling reason to. We saw the NX-01 being constructed in orbit and I'm guessing ship construction safety/technology wouldn't have taken a step back in the intervening centuries. These TNG engineers, they've got transporters and replicators and force-fields and shit. There's a reason we don't build our supertankers in South Dakota.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Dang it! And I'm always so good about pointing out to my wife people who've played on Star Trek. Can't believe I missed that!
She gets a dollar for every time I do that. Needless to say, she doesn't have to work outside the home... LOL.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:From Lee: To build a ship on the ground would require massive gravity-nullification, plus constant and rapidly-shifting and evolving Structural-Integrity field application.
Quite aside from the main topic, as a sidenote I don't think this would be too much of a problem for the Federation. Their computers routinely employ subspace fields to run FTL...so couldn't they be employed to manage millisecond to millisecond changes required to forcefield, structural integrity and artificial gravity systems? After all if it's a matter of compensating for local natural phenomena, an FTL computer should (by definition) be able to operate fast enough to take them into account and adjust things accordingly. As I say just a sidenote, but an interesting one. Well, to me anyway! ;-)
quote:And from bX... it is, at heart, a profoundly silly idea. I'm siding with Lee on this one (minus 80% of the n00Bashing, it's his job, you see).
Minus only 80% of the bashing? :-) I've been around here for a while now. Admittedly I read more than I pitch in, but I would have thought I would have been around long enough to at least be not quite so noobish anymore. Still, as I look into the mirror and see more and more of my dad's hairline staring back at me maybe being considered new in some aspects of my life isn't such a bad thing! ;-)
While I don't think the idea is all that silly, I agree that the majority of on-screen evidence points to orbital construction and I also agree that this has benefits in some aspects over planetside work. However, there is the point made above that the bad guys in "Parallels" had to be looking at the place for something.
Thinking about it, it might tie in with the idea floated earlier that the surface construction area is a place where they build one spaceframe and subject it to extreme conditions for stress tolerance tests. Stands to reason that the hulls they would build in there would be the prototypes for the next series of ships Starfleet would be sending out - that in itself might be enough to entice the bad guys to peek. After all why watch a crew in orbit build yet another Excelsior class when you can train your sensor array on the test range on the ground and see what new stuff they're putting together?
quote:And finally from HerbShrump... Dang it! And I'm always so good about pointing out to my wife people who've played on Star Trek. Can't believe I missed that!
I'm afflicted by this as well - my fiance has to endure paused DVDs and trips to the computer to check the imdb all the time. Last time it was watching "Young Frankenstein" for the nth time, when I realised that the copper with the fake arm was the guy from "Malcolm in the Middle". Felt silly that I hadn't spotted that one before.
Posted by Joshua Bell (Member # 327) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: The training facility idea has some merit, though I question what use a 1/1 scale replica would be, given that there were supposedly so few GCS in the first place, AND the simple fact that you'd have a holodeck to accomplish most of it anyway.
When I first saw the image, I was sure it had been inspired by the Space Vehicle Mockup Facility:
Note that partial mockups are used (e.g. the crew compartment trainers). And even on the "full" trainer, the wings are left off. And it's all sitting around in one big building.
Agreed re: Holodecks, though.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Yeah... by the 24th Century holodecks are more cost effective. Who knows if those pieces are just there for storage or stress testing, or hell buildings like the Jupiter Station saucers.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
(I bet it's the Trinculo.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Firstly, the notion that a starship with no inherent atmospheric capability would be constructed planetside is assinine in the extreme.
A huge waste of time, energy and rescources to get it all up into space, clean all the dust and contanimants out of everything and then asemble the major pieces for a second phase of construction...
No.
I'd prefer to think that the setup is part of starfleet's rescue/survivial training. Sorta a "save/survive the crashed starship" seneario.
It's concievable that the whole thing is the final resting place of the Galaxy class' "test to destruction" prototype (as is often called for in aircraft) to see how well the spaceframe held out in a planetfall condition.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
What's secondly?
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
That Utopia Planitia's storage area is also orbiting Mars? I never did figure out where did the Defiant get shelved at.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: (I bet it's the Trinculo.)
A few things... I made the Trinculo joke back on page 1!!
Maybe the ship in question is being DEconstructed?
I would say that back at the time of the Enterprise-D being built - the third Galaxy Class?? They probably would have kept it within the confines of a Spacedock to avoid prying eyes. Especially if the Argus Array can be used to spy on a planet's surface light years away.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: What's secondly?
That...er....well....shut up!
Mabye it's a daycare center for the UP children- you know, one of those cutesy buildings vaguely shaped like the product of the company. Motorolla has a big cellphone shaped playground- mabye it's the Starfleet version.
I'm convinced those are not nacelles, but rather 1950's style diners lined up next to each other.
Or possibly, humans have not outgrown the irrational need for mobile homes in the future and are useing them to attract Martian torandoes as part of some weather experiment.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
You guys need lives, and WOMEN! Then again who am I to talk? I have neither...
I'm going to go watch all six Star Wars movies now. Then The LOTR Trilogy (Extended Edition). Then maybe I'll fantasize about being a porn star....
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I have both, and I still out-geek most people I know.
--Jonah
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
The sad part is that I have way too many women in my life...
Now why would Starfleet engineers need to deconstruct a Galaxy Class starship anyway? Crashing the sucker to see how much stress it can handle is more reasonable to me.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: You guys need lives, and WOMEN! Then again who am I to talk? I have neither...
I'm going to go watch all six Star Wars movies now. Then The LOTR Trilogy (Extended Edition). Then maybe I'll fantasize about being a porn star....
Are the three connected some how?
Oh secondly - would have been the next point about the ship possibly being DECONSTRUCTED on the planet's surface?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
When I mentioned the training facility I was also thinking of Wesley's entrance exam, with the exploding room. That did not seem to be a holodeck/room there, although lack of memory leaves out the finer details of the scene to me.
Applying our uses of sims and airframes to what I remember when I worked with the Air Force they did have a B-52 flight sim with all the moving parts needed and a dead airframe used for fire fighting air crew rescue. While a holodeck would work for the first, the second would, to me, be better handled by an article on the ground, and a ship would crash in pieces.
Maybe he likes fantasizing in sets of three, a Wookie, a Hobbit, and a porn star?
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
One problem I have with the 'crash dummy' idea, is that, why would you want to smash a starship into a planet that is of some importance to the federation?
I don't know if there are people living on mars in the 2350/60's, but it does hint towards it it tre, and i don't think they'd go for the idea of someone driving a galaxy class starship into their backyard!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The thing about planets is, they're big.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Right. Like, think of how little the effect it would have on people in the US, if a starship crashed in Antarctica.
Consider too... the Enterprise crashed on Veridian 3, warpcore, antimatter and all in tact, and it apparently did no harm. Except for the tribe of natives they completely wiped out during their trip through the woods.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
If I recall correctly, only the saucer actually crashed, the stardrive section went Bamf in orbit which led to the loss of control in the saucer which resulted in the slide into first.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
OK, so the surface area of mars is about 150 million km^2, but there's bound to be some space hippy called moon-tree galaxy child, or whatever, who'll bitch about it spoiling the beautiful martian dust for decades to come. Or something.
And besides, people winge for the sak of winging. There is no good reason not to test crashing a starship into the side of mars to see how it holds up. Im just saying that the Wong family might want a shitload of cash first (assuming they owned mars for about 700 years).
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Firstly - would a Starship crash so neatly? Saucer, star drive and nacelles all perfectly aligned?
And Secondly, Veridian III wasn't inhabited - it was another planet in the system if I recall correctly. They still would have had to have cleaned up their mess cause if there Veridians eventually achieved space-flight and decided to go to that other verdant planet - and find a crashed starship - or the tell-tale signs of one - AND they hadn't made First Contact - it'd be a serious breach of the Prime Directive.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
(said clean-up forms part of the plot of one of the Shatner books)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Fuck the "Shatnerverse".
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Hey! Tone down that language! And I mean right now! This is a civilized forum!
If your mom allows you to say "Shatnerverse", go say it to her.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Well, getting the Enterprise saucer off of the planet is one of the things that acctually makes sense.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Hey! Tone down that language! And I mean right now! This is a civilized forum!
If your mom allows you to say "Shatnerverse", go say it to her.
Timo Saloniemi
I once got smacked for saying "regina". Although I just had some dental work done it sounded like...Well, you're all intelligent slightly perverted men, you figure it out!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Oh yeah - that's right - I remember reading the first few pages of that Shatner book in the store. It make sense though - cause there WAS a civiliasation on one of the other Veridian system planets.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*nod* It's just that his books are the worst continuity porn offenders -- maybe because the Revves-Stevens duo are his frequent ghostwriting partners, and they're pretty wank-y, as well.
--Jonah
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Dare someone to write a novel based on this Galaxy space-frame! Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
We could call it "Rogue Saucer"... er... wait a minute...
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
Lord, "Rogue Saucer" was a bad one...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Thankfully, I shook my head in disgust and avoided that after reading the premise on the back o the book.
Was that Vornholt?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
It was indeed. I actually own that one.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
How nice for you. Good luck with that.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Just going back to the topic at hand - why would a crashed ship land in neat sections?
I see no problem with at least the SPACE FRAME being assembled down below and then hoisted into orbit - then they fit the computer core as per the Tech guide.
Wasn't there also a 'laying of the first' bit of the Enterprise ceremony mentioned in that timeline - that sounds more like a planet-side thing then up in space.
Also a starship in those drydocks without any sort of support for the individual bits of the frame would have beams floating everywhere - when you have the actual idea of the ship up there - it's easier for a tractor beam to just keep the whole ship inside the structure.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
They would have crashed the ship anywhere else on the planet and then brought the pieces there for study. No need to perform the autopsy at the crime scene.
There's no need for anything to be "floating around" freely at an orbital drydock- between magnetics, replicators and basic force-fields, it would all be tightly controlled. Plus, orbital factories could produce the components, then ease them several thousand clicks to their construction destinations with minimal power expense (and lugging several million tonnes of spacerame into orbit is a huuuge waste). Not to mention that metal fabrication/bonding in a oxygen-free environment yeilds a much stronger metal.
Besides, if the Cardassians can manage spacebourne shipyards, the UFP sure as fuck can too. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Which brings me back to the idea - that they are slowly dismantling that Galaxy Class... maybe it had an inherent flaw that they are investigating.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Maybe it's a partially-completed monument to the Yamato, Enterprise, and Odyssey...
--Jonah
Posted by tricky (Member # 1402) on :
Well, considering we've sen 2 blow up from warp core breaches (3 if you include the Odyssey, but that had bits of another ship in the warp core at the time, which can't be healthy), I'd have a look. It could be the star fleet museum. Maybe they have to land the ships as they can't afford artificial gravity.... Lawn ornament for the seriously important?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I think it's a construction yard.
I know it's already been said, but it's been a while and I'm wondering if we've forgotten the original intent of the picture.
Mark
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye it's a monument to W359. A park outside the shipyards to honor the 10,000 killed in that battle.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I like that idea - except putting the nacelles in each corner??
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Only the general shape would be of a nacelle (or prahaps they made the building's frame from actual wreckage), so they could be walk-through museums or even house holographic representations of each slain starfleet victim.
That would be an errie monument- having to actually see and walk past the fallen....
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Then why put it on the ground? There are numerous references to the Starfleet Museum, which has presumably intact (if not spaceworthy) exhibits of whole starships. Why deliberately build a museum of a modern, in-service starship design?
Mark
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Or as mentioned?? It's a large adventure playground!?! "Look Ma! I'm on the Bridge!!"
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)