In "Waltz"[DSN6], there's one aspect of that most excellent episode that has always seemed odd to me. Sisko and Dukat are stranded on a planet with only the emergency supply rations from a shuttle to sustain them. While eating some of Dukat's cooking, Sisko notes that it needs pepper. So, he adds some from what appears to be a shaker.
A pepper shaker?
Salt as a part of an emergency supply kit I can understand. Even sugar has its uses. But pepper simply is not a necessary part of the diet. Sure, I'm all about some pepper, but let's be realistic here.
Black pepper is simply the ground bits of the peppercorn plant. Although it has been a prized spice on Earth for millenia (even used as currency at times), that doesn't justify its inclusion in an emergency supply kit. Even if we assumed that it was included because of piperine (the relevant chemical of pepper, reportedly useful for lowering metabolism), there would surely be more efficient ways to store and deliver it to the species who would be properly affected by it than via ground peppercorn in a dedicated shaker.
(Of course this touches on the fact that everyone seems to be able to eat everyone else's culinary delights in Trek without being poisoned, but that's a rant for another time.)
2006-03-22
2006-03-08
Hey! Which one of you guys did this?
Well, I guess someone finally made the movie.
You may have been already linked to it, but I think it's hilarious. Not to mention a pretty decent take on the matter. Quality's a bit off, but still pretty good for a fan production. Makes use of the same Lysian-blasting clip I've been showing stills of to demonstrate what would happen to TIEs trying to strafe the E-D, with the TIEs inserted in place of the original small mobile targets.
You may have been already linked to it, but I think it's hilarious. Not to mention a pretty decent take on the matter. Quality's a bit off, but still pretty good for a fan production. Makes use of the same Lysian-blasting clip I've been showing stills of to demonstrate what would happen to TIEs trying to strafe the E-D, with the TIEs inserted in place of the original small mobile targets.
2006-03-05
Praxis and the Evacuation of Q'onoS
I saw this in the comments to the starbase post from a few days ago and wanted to reply, but the ideas were particularly interesting to me so I put it up here.
For kicks, let's give the 23rd Century Klingon Empire half-a-million ships (military, civilian, et al.). Let's assume that each ship can carry an average of, say, 500 people. And, finally, assume a one-month average round trip to the various suitable planets in the Empire (which as of the 2260's was said to have many poor systems, which was the basis of their expansionism).
That's 250,000,000 people per month. At that rate, evacuating modern-day Earth would take two years and two months (assuming 6.5 billion people). However, that wouldn't even begin to account for material, supplies, population growth during evac (we're going to hit 7 billion by 2012), et cetera.
And while that's going on, do you really think the Klingons could do much in the way of their interstellar policies?
Now, chatter from the Federation president in ST6 made reference to completing the evacuation of Q'onoS within a fifty-year timespan, which eases things quite a bit. Let's assume there are just 10 billion Klingons on the homeworld, and that over the course of fifty years the total number to evacuate will be 20 billion. (That's a rough ballpark figure, meant to account for births per year and the notion that older Klingons might just choose to stay and die on the homeworld. We're at 130 million births per year, so I adjusted theirs to 200 million/year in keeping with the 10 billion total. That would give us 10 billion new Klingons within fifty years. (Since the birth rate would decline over the course of the fifty years I was going to drop the total evac population to 15 billion. However, they probably have shorter generations than we do and yet also have far longer lifespans, so more of the original ten billion would be around than is the case with mankind.)
To evac all of them in fifty years (600 months) will require an average rate of over 33 million people per month. Even at fifteen thousand people per ship -- equal to what the Galaxy Class could carry, and it'll have to be the average per ship -- that's still going to require 2,223 ships engaged in constant evacuation with a one-month turnaround time. If the round trip turnaround time were two months then 4,445 ships would be needed.
Of course, Klingon ships are generally not Galaxy-esque luxury liners. Like the Intrepid Class, they are built more for combat performance. The Intrepid Class starship Voyager, despite being on the large side, could evac an absolute maximum of 475 people. A particular type of Klingon civilian transport in the 2370's carried just 441. Thus it might make more sense to bring down the average from the Galaxy maximum to something more reasonable . . . say, an average of 1000. That would mean that 33,334 ships would have to be making trips with an average one-month turnaround time, or 66,667 ships with an average two-month turnaround time. And again, that's just people and not materiel, supplies, mementos, cultural icons, et cetera.
Remember, though, that common estimates of fleet strength in the 2370's are around 10,000 ships each for the Federation, Klingons, and Romulans. While I'm sure there are many, many more private/commercial/cargo ships, there's just no way one can assume that the Klingons are going to be able to maintain their empire without incident.
In short, the depletion of the Klingon homeworld's ozone layer and the end of free oxygen would've meant that the planet would've died within 50 years assuming no one left. However, to evacuate the planet would require thousands of ships times decades.
Either way you're talking about an incredible blow to the Klingon Empire. The fact that the 24th Century Trek seems to suggest that some sort of magic fix was accomplished doesn't negate the fact that the Klingon Empire had to have basically been in a state of reconstruction for much of the late-23rd and early-24th Century.
"[In Star Trek VI] the depletion of [oxygen] from Qo'nos, a single planet, meant the practical extermination of Klingon race and death of their Empire."
For kicks, let's give the 23rd Century Klingon Empire half-a-million ships (military, civilian, et al.). Let's assume that each ship can carry an average of, say, 500 people. And, finally, assume a one-month average round trip to the various suitable planets in the Empire (which as of the 2260's was said to have many poor systems, which was the basis of their expansionism).
That's 250,000,000 people per month. At that rate, evacuating modern-day Earth would take two years and two months (assuming 6.5 billion people). However, that wouldn't even begin to account for material, supplies, population growth during evac (we're going to hit 7 billion by 2012), et cetera.
And while that's going on, do you really think the Klingons could do much in the way of their interstellar policies?
Now, chatter from the Federation president in ST6 made reference to completing the evacuation of Q'onoS within a fifty-year timespan, which eases things quite a bit. Let's assume there are just 10 billion Klingons on the homeworld, and that over the course of fifty years the total number to evacuate will be 20 billion. (That's a rough ballpark figure, meant to account for births per year and the notion that older Klingons might just choose to stay and die on the homeworld. We're at 130 million births per year, so I adjusted theirs to 200 million/year in keeping with the 10 billion total. That would give us 10 billion new Klingons within fifty years. (Since the birth rate would decline over the course of the fifty years I was going to drop the total evac population to 15 billion. However, they probably have shorter generations than we do and yet also have far longer lifespans, so more of the original ten billion would be around than is the case with mankind.)
To evac all of them in fifty years (600 months) will require an average rate of over 33 million people per month. Even at fifteen thousand people per ship -- equal to what the Galaxy Class could carry, and it'll have to be the average per ship -- that's still going to require 2,223 ships engaged in constant evacuation with a one-month turnaround time. If the round trip turnaround time were two months then 4,445 ships would be needed.
Of course, Klingon ships are generally not Galaxy-esque luxury liners. Like the Intrepid Class, they are built more for combat performance. The Intrepid Class starship Voyager, despite being on the large side, could evac an absolute maximum of 475 people. A particular type of Klingon civilian transport in the 2370's carried just 441. Thus it might make more sense to bring down the average from the Galaxy maximum to something more reasonable . . . say, an average of 1000. That would mean that 33,334 ships would have to be making trips with an average one-month turnaround time, or 66,667 ships with an average two-month turnaround time. And again, that's just people and not materiel, supplies, mementos, cultural icons, et cetera.
Remember, though, that common estimates of fleet strength in the 2370's are around 10,000 ships each for the Federation, Klingons, and Romulans. While I'm sure there are many, many more private/commercial/cargo ships, there's just no way one can assume that the Klingons are going to be able to maintain their empire without incident.
In short, the depletion of the Klingon homeworld's ozone layer and the end of free oxygen would've meant that the planet would've died within 50 years assuming no one left. However, to evacuate the planet would require thousands of ships times decades.
Either way you're talking about an incredible blow to the Klingon Empire. The fact that the 24th Century Trek seems to suggest that some sort of magic fix was accomplished doesn't negate the fact that the Klingon Empire had to have basically been in a state of reconstruction for much of the late-23rd and early-24th Century.
Anakin's Hand
As seen here, we're not too far from Star Wars-quality prosthetics, and better ones soon after. Sure it isn't made of durasteel, but it will enable fine control. Although I can't immediately find a reference of Anakin's hand containing sensory feedback systems (though he could clench his hand so hard that the electronic feedback would make his shoulder ache, per the RoTS novel, he didn't have "pain sensors"), the new bionic hands will have that capability.
Further, the hands will (like early-model Terminators) feature a false covering designed to mimic human flesh. In other words, no need for a black glove to cover up shiny metal.
Of course this will all cost some coin, and probably won't be readily available for a decade or more. I'd imagine also that some sort of power system is required, though presumably the same is true of Anakin's hand (given Vader's many systems). Given our power tech I'm sure there will be need of recharging. However, that's hardly a vast improvement.
Of course, a few decades after this becomes available, I'd bet that instead of all this bionics we'd rather simply use cloned body parts. You don't have to create a complete lifeform, after all . . . cell differentiation is what makes organs and pieces to begin with. Replicating that will take a bit more effort than just growing a whole new human being, but it won't be impossible. However, Star Wars seems not to possess that technology for some reason, which is quite odd given the cloning elsewhere.
Of course Trek is no exception to this oddity, what with Picard's bionic heart and Nog's "biosynthetic" leg. I'm not even sure what a biosynthetic leg is, exactly, but it sounds like instead of cloned Nog-parts they used either a forced-growth setup (a la the new arm of Swamp Thing from the movie of the same name), or attached something which adapted itself to Nog's leg requirements, or else some sort of android-like leg composed largely of biomaterial and not all artificial bits like Data, or something else altogether. Nog was gone to a starbase for a time to get the procedure done, though, so it apparently isn't as fast a job as Luke's hand seemed to be.
However, since Anakin's hand presumably had all the time in the world to get installed, it seems that limb replacement is generally more advanced in Trek, whereas Star Wars limb replacement in the Republic era topped out at a level of tech comparable to mid-21st Century Earth.
Further, the hands will (like early-model Terminators) feature a false covering designed to mimic human flesh. In other words, no need for a black glove to cover up shiny metal.
Of course this will all cost some coin, and probably won't be readily available for a decade or more. I'd imagine also that some sort of power system is required, though presumably the same is true of Anakin's hand (given Vader's many systems). Given our power tech I'm sure there will be need of recharging. However, that's hardly a vast improvement.
Of course, a few decades after this becomes available, I'd bet that instead of all this bionics we'd rather simply use cloned body parts. You don't have to create a complete lifeform, after all . . . cell differentiation is what makes organs and pieces to begin with. Replicating that will take a bit more effort than just growing a whole new human being, but it won't be impossible. However, Star Wars seems not to possess that technology for some reason, which is quite odd given the cloning elsewhere.
Of course Trek is no exception to this oddity, what with Picard's bionic heart and Nog's "biosynthetic" leg. I'm not even sure what a biosynthetic leg is, exactly, but it sounds like instead of cloned Nog-parts they used either a forced-growth setup (a la the new arm of Swamp Thing from the movie of the same name), or attached something which adapted itself to Nog's leg requirements, or else some sort of android-like leg composed largely of biomaterial and not all artificial bits like Data, or something else altogether. Nog was gone to a starbase for a time to get the procedure done, though, so it apparently isn't as fast a job as Luke's hand seemed to be.
However, since Anakin's hand presumably had all the time in the world to get installed, it seems that limb replacement is generally more advanced in Trek, whereas Star Wars limb replacement in the Republic era topped out at a level of tech comparable to mid-21st Century Earth.
2006-03-04
Top Ten Reasons the Rebel Alliance Rocks
- One squadron of X-wings plus one squadron of Y-wings vs a Death Star and the best fighter pilot in the history of the galaxy: Rebels win.
- Rebel ion cannon the size of a large telescope vs Imperial Star Destroyer the size of an airport: Ion cannon wins.
- Five squadrons of Rebel fighters, one Millenium Falcon, and a dozen or so assorted Rebel cruisers vs several dozen Star Destroyers and a Death Star: Rebels win.
- Rebel commandos plus Ewok support vs a legion of the Emperor's best troops: Rebels win.
- Vader's "great fleet" tries to capture Rebel ships launching out of a gravity well... and fails miserably in the face of their evasive tactics.
- Slavery is illegal in the Empire ... but when Jabba practices slavery on the home planet of an ex-slave right hand man of the Emperor(Darth Vader), it takes the Rebels to end his foul ways.
- The Empire only gets hot chicks in the EU. And almost all the really hot ones there defect anyway.
- Even when the Empire succeeds in capturing a Rebel ship, they let what they were looking for (Death Star plans) get away.
- Carrie Fischer (Leia) is a hundred times hotter than Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine). If not more.
- The Rebel Alliance is an equal opportunity employer with regard to species, sex, race, and religion, unlike the Empire.
2006-02-25
Turning Swords Into Needles
Sometimes overall strategy requires that designers include things that make no tactical sense for the object being designed. This was very true in the case of submarines during the Cold War. People have always had an interest in adding unusual items to sub designs. The British M.1 featured an enormous gun as one would find on surface warships. The German "Deutschland" was a modified design of U-Boat with enormous cargo space, used for trade with the U.S. before the latter's entry into WW1. And, of course, there was the very popular idea of using subs as aircraft carriers (which everyone tried from time to time in the early 1900s).
(Most of these were simply mobile seaplane garages (such as the French Surcouf), whereas others were full-fledged carriers with direct onboard launch capability. Carriers included the British M.2 and various Japanese efforts, such as the I-15 Class (aka the B1-type), though these always featured single planes. (However, the B1-type I-25's single plane conducted the only known aerial bombing of the continental U.S.)
There was also the huge I-400 class capable of carrying and launching three planes. However, I discount the I-400 since it was not so much an aircraft carrier as it was a kamikaze-guided-missile carrier, intended for use in a suicide attack against the Panama Canal.)
However, only the addition of nuclear weapons really took off.
Whereas the other additions might still be useful, however, the nukes aren't considered to be in the modern climate. And so some have wondered what to do with a large number of perfectly operable submarines that just happen to be excessively long so as to contain a number of upright tubes.
Well, The Skunk Works has figured something out. A small UAV is ejected from the sub's tubes and allowed to float to the surface, where it launches. After performing recon or attacks, it returns and somehow executes a non-destructive water landing, at which point it is recovered.
This is amusing on several levels. First, that thing looks like an F-86 Sabre and an F4U Corsair made babies. Second, the idea of a sub-launched airplane just has a note of irony that can't be ignored. Third, there's the fact that the dream of a proper submarine aircraft carrier could be realized, with a small fleet of aircraft able to be launched while the sub remains cloaked underwater. And finally, of course, there's the fact that weapons capable of destroying a city are being replaced with weapons intended to blow up trucks and buildings.
Advancements, after all, come in many forms, and sometimes in directions opposite what one might expect.
In any case, it's interesting that none of the major cloaking races of Trek make use of similar ideas. "Balance of Terror"[TOS1] was a sub-hunter analog, after all, and given that we've seen fighters in Trek (albeit usually in the form of "miniature" starships of almost a hundred feet long) we know the two could be mixed.
If we continue the sub/cloak analogy, it seems to me that the Klingon emphasis on individual glory could easily have resulted in the use of cloaked fighter-carriers instead of their reliance on small independent cloaking warships such as the Bird of Prey. However, apparently the ease of adding cloaking devices to BoP designs made that the more attractive option . . . not to mention that all the warriors would want to be pilots instead of manning the cowardly "hiding" carrier.
This leaves us with the Romulans. Surely they would man a hiding carrier, and given their weapons technology they could probably have created a devastating fighter in the 2260's. Presumably the technology simply never advanced to a point where they felt they could get away with it.
After all, radar pretty much killed the sub advantage during WW2. It wasn't until sub reactor advances allowed for constant submergence that subs could realistically be hidden again . . . but then there was sonar. The point, though, is that if a sub surfaced to launch a plane . . . a plane that would probably be small and short-range in the first place . . . then as soon as the plane was high enough to be seen on radar the location of the sub would be known.
Similarly, the early Romulan holo-cloaks of the 2150's made the ships difficult to spot, but still easy to track. 100 years later, they were still detectable as a 'motion blip' via unclear means. So, if you were a cloaked Romulan carrier, you'd have had to have cruised to a location without being detected, launched from outside detection range, and then pick up whatever fighters returned (and hope they didn't bring company).
In short, the idea seems neat, but may be problematic. Sure, something similar is the basis of the Yorktown/Minotaur combo at the Starfleet Museum, but we're talking about the use of such tactics in a different sort of 'reality' altogether.
More thought would be required to make this workable, assuming it could even be practical.
(Most of these were simply mobile seaplane garages (such as the French Surcouf), whereas others were full-fledged carriers with direct onboard launch capability. Carriers included the British M.2 and various Japanese efforts, such as the I-15 Class (aka the B1-type), though these always featured single planes. (However, the B1-type I-25's single plane conducted the only known aerial bombing of the continental U.S.)
There was also the huge I-400 class capable of carrying and launching three planes. However, I discount the I-400 since it was not so much an aircraft carrier as it was a kamikaze-guided-missile carrier, intended for use in a suicide attack against the Panama Canal.)
However, only the addition of nuclear weapons really took off.
Whereas the other additions might still be useful, however, the nukes aren't considered to be in the modern climate. And so some have wondered what to do with a large number of perfectly operable submarines that just happen to be excessively long so as to contain a number of upright tubes.
Well, The Skunk Works has figured something out. A small UAV is ejected from the sub's tubes and allowed to float to the surface, where it launches. After performing recon or attacks, it returns and somehow executes a non-destructive water landing, at which point it is recovered.
This is amusing on several levels. First, that thing looks like an F-86 Sabre and an F4U Corsair made babies. Second, the idea of a sub-launched airplane just has a note of irony that can't be ignored. Third, there's the fact that the dream of a proper submarine aircraft carrier could be realized, with a small fleet of aircraft able to be launched while the sub remains cloaked underwater. And finally, of course, there's the fact that weapons capable of destroying a city are being replaced with weapons intended to blow up trucks and buildings.
Advancements, after all, come in many forms, and sometimes in directions opposite what one might expect.
In any case, it's interesting that none of the major cloaking races of Trek make use of similar ideas. "Balance of Terror"[TOS1] was a sub-hunter analog, after all, and given that we've seen fighters in Trek (albeit usually in the form of "miniature" starships of almost a hundred feet long) we know the two could be mixed.
If we continue the sub/cloak analogy, it seems to me that the Klingon emphasis on individual glory could easily have resulted in the use of cloaked fighter-carriers instead of their reliance on small independent cloaking warships such as the Bird of Prey. However, apparently the ease of adding cloaking devices to BoP designs made that the more attractive option . . . not to mention that all the warriors would want to be pilots instead of manning the cowardly "hiding" carrier.
This leaves us with the Romulans. Surely they would man a hiding carrier, and given their weapons technology they could probably have created a devastating fighter in the 2260's. Presumably the technology simply never advanced to a point where they felt they could get away with it.
After all, radar pretty much killed the sub advantage during WW2. It wasn't until sub reactor advances allowed for constant submergence that subs could realistically be hidden again . . . but then there was sonar. The point, though, is that if a sub surfaced to launch a plane . . . a plane that would probably be small and short-range in the first place . . . then as soon as the plane was high enough to be seen on radar the location of the sub would be known.
Similarly, the early Romulan holo-cloaks of the 2150's made the ships difficult to spot, but still easy to track. 100 years later, they were still detectable as a 'motion blip' via unclear means. So, if you were a cloaked Romulan carrier, you'd have had to have cruised to a location without being detected, launched from outside detection range, and then pick up whatever fighters returned (and hope they didn't bring company).
In short, the idea seems neat, but may be problematic. Sure, something similar is the basis of the Yorktown/Minotaur combo at the Starfleet Museum, but we're talking about the use of such tactics in a different sort of 'reality' altogether.
More thought would be required to make this workable, assuming it could even be practical.
2006-02-16
Quick Notes + Spacedock and Starbase Dependency
Just a couple of quick notes until I can do some catch-up this weekend (hopefully).
1. The comments field seems to have become a de facto debate arena in the recent post on extremism, but for that purpose it's pretty clunky.
2. Yet another new face has been added. Expect even more cool posts here soon.
3. I was watching "Homefront"[DSN4] a few weeks ago and, as always, wondered where Spacedock had gone, since it was never mentioned while Earth's power systems were knocked out. Everyone was making use of the Lakota as if it was the only Starfleet item in orbit. This sort of thing . . . plus the fact that we generally never heard of or saw Spacedock at all throughout the TNG era . . . has led people (myself included) to wonder if Spacedock was even there anymore.
Of course, while Spacedock is almost certainly the biggest example of objects in Earth orbit, it isn't the only one. Earth orbit was a hub of activity in TMP, with orbital offices and drydocks galore. We've also heard of orbital habitats built by Sisko before DS9, and we've seen another drydock in Earth orbit as of Nemesis. That last bit kills the notion that all the Starfleet orbital stuff had been moved to Mars, where various large stations and drydock facilities have been seen.
Unless we're supposed to believe that Earth orbit has been cleared since the TMP era save for a drydock and some orbiting apartment buildings, then we can't simply assume that Spacedock isn't there simply because of a lack of mention.
. . . Or so I was thinking. It then occurred to me that there actually had been a mention of Earth Spacedock. In "Non Sequitur"[VOY2], Kim is trapped in a timeline that diverged from the "real" one starting several months before the episode (which was a Season 1 holdover set in 2371). He and the alternate-Paris steal a ship Kim designed from Spacedock.
So, at least as of a week or so before Voyager's departure in mid-2371 (which is when Kim signed on for the ship's mission per Pathways), Spacedock did exist. Unless something freaky happened in the intervening year, Spacedock was still there during the "Homefront" events.
Why it wasn't mentioned or used at all is another question altogether.
4. For some reason I was thinking that there was a shot of one of the huge Federation mushroom starbases like Starbase 74 (the upscaled Spacedock-style bases), one which did not have the planetary disc behind it as was seen in the original ST3 shot, and that further this base might've been "merely" of Spacedock size.
Evidently I'm either senile or have been hitting the crack pipe again, since a quick check of DITL and TrekCore.com's episode screenshots confirms that the shots of Starbase 133 and Lya Station Alpha used the TNG-modified ST3 shots as seen in the original Starbase 74 ep, "11001001"[TNG1]. Those all have the remarkably-Earth-like planet behind them.
This means, though, that every time we've seen one of those large-scale bases it has been in orbit of a Class M planet. The various "freestanding" bases have all been of the Regula-looking type (either Regula-size or of the larger 173/375 configurations).
I don't know about you, but if I've built a structure weighing in the neighborhood of 40-140 billion tonnes, I'd rather not put it anywhere where (a) it is subjected to the slightest gravity shear across its bulk or (b) it is remotely possible that it will go crashing down onto a populated planet. I mean, these things aren't in LEO, skirting the atmosphere and needing frequent boosts . . . but they aren't exactly out in stable L4 or L5 Trojan-style LaGrange positions either.
Assuming there are no such bases in open space, this implies that that type of base is dependent on the planet in some manner. Either (a) they aren't sufficiently self-sustaining in regards to basic supplies, crew support, materiel, et cetera, (b) they are specialized bases requiring certain supplies or manufacturing from below (kind of like Terok Nor's original purpose as an ore processing station before becoming DS9), or (c) other. Further pondering seems prudent.
1. The comments field seems to have become a de facto debate arena in the recent post on extremism, but for that purpose it's pretty clunky.
2. Yet another new face has been added. Expect even more cool posts here soon.
3. I was watching "Homefront"[DSN4] a few weeks ago and, as always, wondered where Spacedock had gone, since it was never mentioned while Earth's power systems were knocked out. Everyone was making use of the Lakota as if it was the only Starfleet item in orbit. This sort of thing . . . plus the fact that we generally never heard of or saw Spacedock at all throughout the TNG era . . . has led people (myself included) to wonder if Spacedock was even there anymore.
Of course, while Spacedock is almost certainly the biggest example of objects in Earth orbit, it isn't the only one. Earth orbit was a hub of activity in TMP, with orbital offices and drydocks galore. We've also heard of orbital habitats built by Sisko before DS9, and we've seen another drydock in Earth orbit as of Nemesis. That last bit kills the notion that all the Starfleet orbital stuff had been moved to Mars, where various large stations and drydock facilities have been seen.
Unless we're supposed to believe that Earth orbit has been cleared since the TMP era save for a drydock and some orbiting apartment buildings, then we can't simply assume that Spacedock isn't there simply because of a lack of mention.
. . . Or so I was thinking. It then occurred to me that there actually had been a mention of Earth Spacedock. In "Non Sequitur"[VOY2], Kim is trapped in a timeline that diverged from the "real" one starting several months before the episode (which was a Season 1 holdover set in 2371). He and the alternate-Paris steal a ship Kim designed from Spacedock.
So, at least as of a week or so before Voyager's departure in mid-2371 (which is when Kim signed on for the ship's mission per Pathways), Spacedock did exist. Unless something freaky happened in the intervening year, Spacedock was still there during the "Homefront" events.
Why it wasn't mentioned or used at all is another question altogether.
4. For some reason I was thinking that there was a shot of one of the huge Federation mushroom starbases like Starbase 74 (the upscaled Spacedock-style bases), one which did not have the planetary disc behind it as was seen in the original ST3 shot, and that further this base might've been "merely" of Spacedock size.
Evidently I'm either senile or have been hitting the crack pipe again, since a quick check of DITL and TrekCore.com's episode screenshots confirms that the shots of Starbase 133 and Lya Station Alpha used the TNG-modified ST3 shots as seen in the original Starbase 74 ep, "11001001"[TNG1]. Those all have the remarkably-Earth-like planet behind them.
This means, though, that every time we've seen one of those large-scale bases it has been in orbit of a Class M planet. The various "freestanding" bases have all been of the Regula-looking type (either Regula-size or of the larger 173/375 configurations).
I don't know about you, but if I've built a structure weighing in the neighborhood of 40-140 billion tonnes, I'd rather not put it anywhere where (a) it is subjected to the slightest gravity shear across its bulk or (b) it is remotely possible that it will go crashing down onto a populated planet. I mean, these things aren't in LEO, skirting the atmosphere and needing frequent boosts . . . but they aren't exactly out in stable L4 or L5 Trojan-style LaGrange positions either.
Assuming there are no such bases in open space, this implies that that type of base is dependent on the planet in some manner. Either (a) they aren't sufficiently self-sustaining in regards to basic supplies, crew support, materiel, et cetera, (b) they are specialized bases requiring certain supplies or manufacturing from below (kind of like Terok Nor's original purpose as an ore processing station before becoming DS9), or (c) other. Further pondering seems prudent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)