www.ditl.org

Rounding out my Franz Joseph tribute, his take on Starbase 1.

As drawn...



The orientation of the station is actually quite odd. Here's a cross section through the central hub.



As you can see, down is out towards the rim. Most of that central core is empty space, with strips of parkland about a thousand feet wide and fifteen hundred feet long in each of the six sections between the outer spheres. You might think it rotates for gravity, but no - each segment has its own artificial gravity, at an angle to the others.

There are buildings in those sections, but most of the space is below - each strip of parkland has 10 or more decks below it, which is what the rings of windows are. And there is warehouse and cargo storage areas below that.

The outer spheres are starship docks, each large enough to take up to three ships.

My take on it







Overall, I gotta say, I honestly don't like this station that much. It's an odd design, and I like how creative it is, but it just doesn't work for me. I have to say, though, having Starfleet command as a station like this in deep space somewhere makes more sense to me than having it groundside on Earth.

The amount of green space is great for a semi-permanent colony or civilian installation... but seems excessive and wasteful for a Starfleet facility. As a technical nitpick, the fact of the difference in orientation between the main sections and the separated outer ring seems to be a problem. I presume from the position of the windows on that ring that "down" in that ring is 90 degrees off from the "down" oriented away from the center in the inner sections.

Withartificial gravity, I don't suppose it matters if different parts of the station have gravity in different directions.

Can't it just be oriented 90 degrees?

McAvoy wrote:Can't it just be oriented 90 degrees?

What, the outer rim? Sure, but it isn't.

Graham Kennedy wrote:Withartificial gravity, I don't suppose it matters if different parts of the station have gravity in different directions.

No doubt, but it's still hella inconvenient/sickening when somebody has to go through that tube from the main section to the rim.

How's this then?

Not sure you've got the ship scale right. You say it can take up to 3 ships in each of the balls. It certainly seems very optimistic at the scale you shown. Look at the last picture, no way are you getting three of them in there. the other ships are not that much smaller than that either.

Actually it does work. I've put three ships inside one of those balls with the doors closed. It's really tight, though!

That's crazy. You can only get them out in order, and it looks like only specific ships would fit in each location. For example you couldn't put a conni in the upper position. I doubt you could put a Saladin in the lower position either. It's madness I tell you, madness.

IanKennedy wrote:That's crazy. You can only get them out in order, and it looks like only specific ships would fit in each location. For example you couldn't put a conni in the upper position. I doubt you could put a Saladin in the lower position either. It's madness I tell you, madness.

Yep. But that's the design.

I have no idea why, but when I looked at it I Hough, "looks Russian"

That's not a Connie, it's a "cruiser class," lol.

Graham Kennedy wrote:How's this then?

Certainly looks more convenient for the crew.

Yup, they fit, but it's still mad!

IanKennedy wrote:Yup, they fit, but it's still mad!

Agreed. If there is some IU reason to not moake those nodes larger, then cut down the nominal capacity to two and make it more flexible.