posted
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.
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
posted
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.
-------------------- "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
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.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
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.
-------------------- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Using antigravity to cancel out gravity just seems crazy backwards. There's no reason to think the Federation has problems building things in space.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
