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.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
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.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
posted
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
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
posted
I still say it's storage... where would you store a ship hull not in use? Where would the Defiant be stored at?
-------------------- "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
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?
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
