8

In Star Trek canon, any ship docks with Enterprise without problem and vice versa. If this involved only human, Vulcan or other known species ships, there's no point to this question. But, I see that this involves even ships of 100% unknown species.
I don't think there was an universal standard for docking port design and technology (deploying such standards universally is impossible too).
Now, what's your canonical explanation around this universal compatibility of docking ports?

  • Are you talking about TOS, TNG or ENT? – bitmask Feb 6 '12 at 16:35
  • Whole Canon... But, you can focus on ENT when they were eager to do more-n-more 1st contact with a primitive docking port.. – I Love You 3000 Feb 6 '12 at 16:42
7

I can tell you the Star Trek: The Next Generation: Writer's and Director's Guide says nothing on the subject and neither does their technical guide.

It's not hard to make a universal docking port. Generally a docking port is a flat surface with a hatch in it that's big enough to walk through. A docking port like this is seen in the movies on the refitted Enterprise. That will be compatible with anything that's big enough.

The other part of a docking port (and it's hard to know which side is the male and which is the female part) is usually a docking ring (but it could be in another shape) that joins to the flat surface around the hatch on the other ship. There are several ways this docking ring can be joined to the flat hull on the other ship. They could use a vacuum seal or an electromagnetic seal (or probably other methods, too).

Also, and I can't remember when I saw this, I remember in one episode a docking ring is extended to mate with a small ship, like a shuttlecraft, where the hull isn't flat, but has an angle in it, but the docking ring was flexible enough to conform to the shape of the hull.

If we look at docking ports with this knowledge, then all it takes to make sure two ports are compatible is to make sure the ring covers an area larger than the hatch on the other ship and is flexible enough to mate with ships where the hull near the hatch may be angled or not exactly a plane. Since the Enterprise deals almost exclusively with humanoids, who almost all use a rectangle about the same size for a hatch, the docking port will be compatibile with any ships with inhabitants in that "range" of size.

So the Enterprise has docking ports or facilities that will be compatible with almost all ships, not just in the Federation, but throughout the galaxy. But it won't be compatible with a ship that has a hatch that is, say, 20' by 20' unless they have larger docking rings we haven't seen.

  • 1
    Of course by the time of TNG, being able to actually dock with another ship is more of a fall back feature, what with transporters on nearly every ship. – Xantec Feb 6 '12 at 21:14
  • But then that leads to the question: "Are the transporters on the Enterprise universally compatible?" – Tango Feb 6 '12 at 21:44
  • 1
    Ha. Someone should ask the Pakleds that question. – Xantec Feb 6 '12 at 21:47
  • 1
    @TangoOversway :) That doesn't make sense as transporters don't need accepting side efforts. You can be transported to & from a planet having no such technology.. – I Love You 3000 Feb 7 '12 at 9:00
  • @SachinShekhar: Uh, I was being facetious about the transporter. That's the whole point: Compatibility is not an issue. – Tango Feb 7 '12 at 15:23
13

When Federation ships dock with alien vessels of unknown origin they most likely use a soft dock, that is, an extendable tunnel that creates a temporary mating between two vehicles that is capable of containing an atmosphere to facilitate the transfer of people and/or goods without the use of bulky individual environmental systems.
In Star Trek Enterprise this can be seen in action most prominently on the shuttles, as they will often extend a tube that mates with and creates an air-tight seal against the hull of the other vessel. By the time of Kirk and Picard Star Fleet was likely using force field based soft docking mechanisms.
From a distance, or from a poorly planned camera angle, the vessels would be so close that they would appear to be touching, but in most cases they likely weren't.

-3

With regard to docking ports/rings I think logically speaking you have to consider engineering functionality; with regard to ease of connections plus stability once connected. For ease of connection you have to use uniform and symetrical shapes such as squares, triangles, circles or quasi-circles (think pentagons or octagons etc.). While squares, triangles and quasi-circs have the advantage of a more solid lock to prevent slippage under torsional or shearing forces once docking is achieved; they have a few key disadvantages that outweigh their strengths. One they prone to catastrophic collapse of their shape once a certain level of torsion is reached because there is no give of play between ship and station during random divergent motion between the two bodies. Two, faceted shapes require much much more exactitude to accomplish a fit between the male and female portions of the docking ring. While true circles, can largely accept a seal with the corresponding dock ring regardless if the planar rotation of ship and station or ship and ship is perfectly exact. Also, rings are inherently stronger as a shape at resisting crushing forces than the other shapes. Circles being nothing more than an infinite arch structure. With regard to torsion once docked again rings are safer. They will rotate within the docked frame rather than collapse totally. Thus maintaining their integrity much longer that non circle shapes.

  • This doesn't directly apply to Enterprise or even Star Trek. – miltonaut Feb 19 '17 at 9:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.