posted
Anyway, I simply doubt that with existence of tractor beam technology anyone would trouble themselves to design such low-tech solution to... I can't even imagine what sort of troubles would require small workbee bulldozer to come and happily... bulldoze something.
Well yeah, there are those shuttle crashes... but this workbee looks far too small for such job
-------------------- "Do I remember about my amnesia?"
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Also, who says workbees are space-only? They look like they'd hold up well in an atmosphere. Maybe they could actually be a bulldozer for, y'know, moving earth and stuff.
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
But what is the point of using space-capable vehicle as ground bulldozer? This is theoretically possible, but... not very practical IMHO.
First, there's a matter of propulsion - that workbee would've to generate thrust to combat forces of gravity and neccesary thrust to actually move earth and stuff around.
And there's matter of practicality - what's wrong with old-fashioned approach, with wheels, threads and stuff? It would be cheaper and simpler to design ground bulldozer with classic treads IMHO.
-------------------- "Do I remember about my amnesia?"
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
How do you know the bulldozer attachment doesn't contain whatever the contemporary form of ground-based propulsion is?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And who says that it necessarily needs to be in a gravity environment? I mean, I imagine that if you're drilling or building on, say, the moon or an asteroid you're going to need a vehicle to push dirt, rocks, and the like out of the way.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
A bulldozer in space would not work at all though- whatever your craft bulldozed ("collided with" is more accurate) would keep moving with the force of the intial impact.
A spacecraft moving materilas would need something to keep the transported material with the craft.
As to the Enterprise's malfunctions- I would not downplay their seriousness: the science officer and some other sap was turned inside out, then the ship is almost destroyed by the "wormhole effect" while zipping along at warp 1. Those are in the film to show that space is sometimes very dangerous for even "everyday" stuff, so an EVA locker and chairs in the travelpod would not have been excessive at all.
A lot of Probert's supposed "function" in his designs seems left out.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
But what is the bulldozer attachment creates a localized gravity field to keep the material together? Eh? EH? Or, how about it's usefulness in propelling large amounts of hippie protestors into space? Eh? EH?
Actually, my biggest problem with the travelpod was the doors. They keep pulled into the ship it docks to, and I'm left wondering how much confidence can be placed in the mechanism that prevents them from falling off in space. I just don't like that the doors can be pulled almost all the way out of the pod.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I dont like that the bulldozer atachment is...well, a bulldozer attachment! No diffrences in any way from what moves dirt on the ground in every construction site today. Reaaal high tech.
Besides, that part looks like crap on a Constructicon, and doubly so on a Trek ship.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
What's wrong with bulldozers being replaced by tractor beams?
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Nothing! The sketch shows a bulldozer glued to the front of a workbee! They might as well have a steamshovel or a dumptruck attachment while they're at it.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Considering those are early doodles, my guess is that the bulldozer isn't intended ltierally, he's exploring the kinds of functions you might need in a construction yard. The final Work Bee's has grabber arms for carrying/manipulating/pushing.
And as to the functionality of Andy's designs, let's not forget that a lot of the final decisions are made by the producers and effects supervisors. And, for any flaws you might see, at least there's a sense in Andy's work that it's designed to be functional, unlike the ILM approach where you make some wonky shape greebled with detail. "Shroomdock" being a prime example.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Hey I LOVE Space Dock. Was just examining a picture of it on the cover of the Star Trek III soundtrack LP today. I love the model work like in the movies - so much better than any CGI still... they're tangible, believable, functional.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
The ILM approach goes for form over function because they are going for a sense of "wow" that can rarely stem from the thought out functionality Probert is talking about. It's hundreds of years in the future- not everything should be obvious in form and function. In many ways, TMP-STVI look less advanced than they should- particularly once Meyer started his "submarine" leanings in TWOK.
A blend of the two ideas is best I think Spacedock is cool as hell- waaaay better than that frail drydock structure they've re-used ad naseum.
Like Andrew, I love Spacedock....except it's too-small doors- that is just assinine.
ILM's approach is that not every aspect of far futuristic stuff designed (at least in part) by aliens would be recognizable, nor should it be explained away at the expense of/in place of -story.
I hate to say it, but if Probert designed Spacedock, it would probably look like ass. Functional as hell, but ugly as sin anyway.
look at the Office Complex /Regula as an example- it looks low tech. It looks like a 1970's building in space- all it needs is plastic plants in the lobby.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Do you also think the Galaxy class, the Vulcan Shuttle, the Romulan Warbird and the Ferengi Marauder look "like ass"?
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
