Size and historyEdit
I find Spacedock a breathtaking structure of the Star Trek universe. Clearly the largest space structure in the Federation, but so rarely commented upon. Or questioned. The huge docks are literally cities in space. Much must go on there other than repair a few starships at a time and the relay of subspace signals. They have the size to possess massive shield generators, and must have the most powerful weapons defensive grid in the Federation. But it seems that the Spacedocks are easily thwarted. Whether it is an inside job or an 'alien' probe, the Spacedocks seem vulnerable. One can assume that they are sublight capable. How cool it would be to see an enormous structure like that gliding effortlessly past the Moon (or A moon) . . . . .
Also, someone should "discover" the history of these behemoths and their construction. The resources required to construct them, and the time span would be great. But they are built to last. Hundred of years most likely. It strikes me as odd that we can have so many schematics of various starship designs, but so little about the Spacedocks and Star Bases. I have no doubt that others feel the same and have given it some thought. So I am curious . . . .
- Presumably, they also have plenty of room to act as admin centers, R&D labs and probably also have some training capabilities. You could probably also launch short-range patrols from them. In other words, they probably have all the capabilities of a large, fixed military and scientific base. As for defensive capabilities, they can probably mount some serious weapons and shields, but even so, it would be pretty hard to move something like that (especially since no large thrusters are evident), so it's basically a sitting duck. All it takes to destroy one is to find a reasonably large asteroid, grab it with tractor beams and accelerate it from a really, really long way away, so that it just goes smashing right through the spacedock, shields or no shields. - Spatula 11:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Steve, I agree with you 100% on most points. I think that part of the reason we don't see more schematics and information about the spacedocks is because so little data is given in the shows and movies and because their massive size makes schematics very time consuming to make.
- I remember when DS9 was first announced I assumed it would be aboard one of these stations and was very excited to find out what life aboard them was like. Unfortunately DS9 turned out to be a very different station.
- Although DS9 had weapons, I would challenge the assumption that the spacedock has weapons, or if it does that they are anything spectacular. I think its clear that without warp nacelles the spacedock is subwarp and its probably beyond Federation technology to put warp drive on a structure that size. The largest Federation built structure known to travel at warp is Soverign class ships (correct me if I'm wrong). Without the need for a matter/anti-matter reactor, I would make no assumptions that the spacedock has any great power, weapons or shields to speak of. Federation 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Just as a point of interest, the Sovereign class is the longest Fed ship we've seen to date, but the Galaxy class is actually rather larger volume-wise. I think that structures like spacedock are always going to be kept in the background with little information as it's just so incredibly vast and it'd be easy to irritate lots of people if it were too powerful/not powerful enough/seemed to be too limited/seemed to be limitless yada yada yada. Tim
Has everyone been to http://www.merzo.net/ "Jeff Russell's Starship Dimensions"? Amazing web page devoted to giving accurate and cannon starship/starbase dimensions across a variety of space-based shows and films. Just looking at the image on the main page of the website shows how truly massive and surreal Earth Spacedock is. DS9 is also shown in the main image (which is a collage of many ships/bases) and only looks to be about the size of the very bottom "rung" of Spacedock. My favorite part of the website: Comparing things from other movies/shows to V'ger and it's energy cloud! (2 AU's NOT 82! o.O) ("The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" - James T. Kirk 07:34, September 22, 2010 (UTC))
Forced perspective on the outside (TSFS)??? Edit
"The original spacedock interior set from Star Trek III was destroyed after the end of filming. The production crew for Star Trek IV had to rebuild the entire set from scratch."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but given this information above, would that explain why the new interior looked somewhat larger and more spacious than the old one?
If so, would that also raise material issues with regards to the supposedly determined diameter of Spacedock (3,810 meters)? Torlek 05:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. The internal dimensions can easily change, just by giving the station thicker or thinner walls, among other possibilities. So long as the interior measurement doesn't exceed the external measurement, it can change as much as it likes. - Spatula 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Interior destroyed after Star Trek III? Edit
I do believe that is a mistake. Look carefully, the interior in Star Trek III and IV look exactly the same. The walls, the middle column, it's the same model. But it looks different in Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country. In fact, all we saw in that movie was a reused shot from ST4 and another shot of a newly built wall/spacedock door. So I believe the original model was destroyed after The Voyage Home, not after The Search for Spock. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).
Station size Edit
Numerous edits have recently taken place, with each being reverted for being unsupported, original research or noncanon. Please address this here before anything new is added. --Alan 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not quite certain how the last edit was "original research," we've seen inside the thing and seen multiple starship hulls present. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- But because it was never stated we shouldn't make assumptions as to how tall it might be. — Morder 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The last anon edit made no such speculation or assumption or anything about height. Why was it reverted? --OuroborosCobra talk 04:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict, coming off of Morder's comment) Indeed. Original research is that which is not based on earlier publications on the subject, which is what's been done here. Without past research to be cited – preferably, production references describing the size of the ship – the measurements, etc., are assumptions reached through original research of a single editor. --From Andoria with Love 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody know where to find informtion about who bought the filming model at Christie's, or where the model is located right now?– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk).
- ...and you're stating that why? --Defiant 22:29, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry – it wasn't intentional, and I didn't know anything about it 'til you brought it up. Once a cat is on a page, it always disappears from my browser's editing window. The browser will also remove and add cats like it's got a mind of its own! These are long-standing issues here on MA, and I don't know what to do about it, but I have seen other users complain about the same sorts of problems, so it's probably wikia screwing up again. --Defiant 23:07, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
- If you're using the new Wikia skin, go into your preferences onto the "Editing" tab, and put a checkmark beside "Disable Category module in Source mode". -- sulfur 23:12, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
- Done, and I can now see the cats. I'm not sure why wikia would want to intentionally hide them, as they are part of the pages. Anyways, thanks very much, sulfur. :) --Defiant 23:17, January 22, 2012 (UTC)