This is topic 1701 built on earth's surface? in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2697.html

Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
OK, two more days until the teaser hits the cinemas, and obviously, it *does* show the construction of the ship on earth's surface. Over at trekmovie.com, people complain that it has always been said she's been built in space blabla..., to which I replied that this clearly shows that Starfleet builds some of their stuff on planetary surfaces.

So, let's discuss this among the experts. [Cool]

The Big E built *in* rather than *above* San Francisco: could it be? [Smile]
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
FAIL.
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
Nono.. because that's a nasty thread with too many spoilers!

To be honest... building a starship on the surface is very high tech of course! It fits very well with the Jefferies 'shirt-sleeve' environment doctrine [Wink]
 
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
Is it christmas yet?
 
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
 
Im sorry, stupid question, but is that genuine? No fan-creation but the actual upcoming-movie Enterprise???

If so, thanks Mirror-Amasov!
 
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
 
And so it is. I went to TrekBBS and Trekmovie and the people discussing them image are mostly annoyed over the nacelles apparently. Too huge seems to be the overwhelming consensus. Personally, I think they project an image of power. And of course, it might just be the perspective.
 
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
It's from the trailer. And I think the nacelle-size-problem relates to the fact that we are relatively close to the saucer here. Usually, the camera is much further away. Even though it's CG, you have to keep it real. Just as you would if this was a real set you can actually film. If you did, it would look just like that. (Or the nacelles would look blurred, depending on the lense you use).
 
Posted by Josh (Member # 1884) on :
 
 -
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Um. That was linked to already, no need to put it into the thread like that.
 
Posted by Josh (Member # 1884) on :
 
Didn't see that.
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
I was wondering if the bulges at the front of the nacelles on the GK version would acocunt for the naceles looking so large. . .

http://www.gabekoerner.com/ent/enterprise_hd_001.jpg

. . . but they look even larger than that. *shrug*
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Actually, looking at it again, if the canards visible in the dockyard shot are at the very rear of the nacelles like in the GK version (and the original? Buggered if I can remember whether they were there on the TOS version), it'll give a clue as to quite how foreshortened the real thing is in that pic.
 
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
 
I realy don't like that, for all of the afformetntioned reasons and more.

I've looked at my photos, my digital stuff ripped from the net, Gabe K's site, even my old models that I have, clamped and looked at thorugh different lenses, and I can't reconsile the nacelles placement (although the size seems OK, give or take) in this picture. And the hull lettering - what's that noise Sideshow Bob makes?

As for the ship being built on Earth, I don't know. From a logistical point of view, the usefullness of having your workforce beinag able to work in shirtsleeves, and presumably close to the yard makes it cheaper and safer for them.

Realy my beef is with the ship having a shape that suggests the spaceframe needs the SIF up and running to keep it together in an atmosphere. Unless you build it on a big frame, like in a drydock. The other issue is getting it into space, but again, we've seen the E flying in an atmosphere.

There is no reason against building the E on the ground, but we've seen ships built in orbit a century earlier (and the Columia was in a more primitive state when we first saw her wasn't she?).

Besides, the movie's gonna be crap anyway, lets just ignore it, like we do with the fifth one.

Edit: It might just be that the trailer has nothing to do with the story of the movie though - the tagline "under construction" etc, and the ship we see here might not be the finished product.
 
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
 
That's a good point. I mean, Pike is supposed to be in the movie, so if this is the ship under construction, it could well have been modified by the time Kirk gets it, so it'll look more similar to the 1701 we all know and love. Just as The Cage version is different from the series version.

It's a possibility at least.
 
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon:
I really don't like that, for all of the afformetntioned reasons and more.

I've looked at my photos, my digital stuff ripped from the net, Gabe K's site, even my old models that I have, clamped and looked at thorugh different lenses, and I can't reconsile the nacelles placement (although the size seems OK, give or take) in this picture. And the hull lettering - what's that noise Sideshow Bob makes?

As for the ship being built on Earth, I don't know. From a logistical point of view, the usefullness of having your workforce beinag able to work in shirtsleeves, and presumably close to the yard makes it cheaper and safer for them.

Realy my beef is with the ship having a shape that suggests the spaceframe needs the SIF up and running to keep it together in an atmosphere. Unless you build it on a big frame, like in a drydock. The other issue is getting it into space, but again, we've seen the E flying in an atmosphere.

There is no reason against building the E on the ground, but we've seen ships built in orbit a century earlier (and the Columia was in a more primitive state when we first saw her wasn't she?).

Besides, the movie's gonna be crap anyway, lets just ignore it, like we do with the fifth one.

Edit: It might just be that the trailer has nothing to do with the story of the movie though - the tagline "under construction" etc, and the ship we see here might not be the finished product.

wow. here's a hankie, get used to it (likely you bitch much more in '08 as we learn more...


[Big Grin]

well, teaseing aside Sir Ginger, don't automatically assume it'll suck. SURE, the teaser may possibly even be misinformation, on the level of Cloverfield. considering that both movies are made by JJ-A, your opinion has some merit backing it. the finished product could be intentially be different (i still personally think someone at Paramount is HUMPING the reset button that First Contact provided to us) but, what if GK's Ent looks more like what JJ-A will debeoy at X-mas? i mean, can someone check, for example if GK's design is TM'ed yet? by GK? or Paramount? another angle to wiggle insider information after all is merchantdising... legalise is legal informed...

[Wink]

cause all the looks ive seen of GK's Ent and the Tease look awefully simular. i guess the best is to ask GK to provide a pic of his ENT mess from nose view. the sheet of metal that rests on top the nacelles (the bulges that Lee mentions) cut curves up and away from our POV. and it seems most people think the GK Ent looks as close to the Teaser Ent as possible.

my money is there might be more to link GK with JJ-A that what we know....

ok, im ranting...

and to further muddy the beer stew with can's...

how many ship's would be manufactured at any one time? for where the ENT was being built, is the Conny herself already finished? any others started? Ship yards being large messy places after all, how much of of Sac-Town/Oakland/SF is dedicated for Ship Yard Work? what other ships are being built on earth? or elsewhere in the UFP?

hehehehehe, ya think JF's Saladin class gonna even seen, built or will Paramount totally bullshit the JF family and still saddle us with the Two Motor/Bussard Collector LOS shite?
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
I'm doing my best to withhold judgement, but it's hard. Everything so far has falt like a slap in Trek's face. I know that's melodramatic, but the established canon is there. To not take that into account is laziness. And as a writer myself, I cannot abide lazy writing.

--Jonah
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Just for the sake of argument, has anyone got a good cap of the Ent from The Cage?
 
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
Two things: First, the wrong font and size of the "USS Enterprise" on the hull could be for artistic reasons. When the camera pulls up in front of the saucer, you have to be able to clearly read the name on the hull. Otherwise, not many people would be able to recognize what it's supposed to be.
Second, we don't know if it is the complete ship. The final shot (the camera pulling up from below the saucer) in the youtube trailer is too dark to make out any details. But maybe it's just the saucer sitting next to the unfinished nacelles. Without the secondary hull and all that.

BTW, from all I've seen so far, I expect them to honor canon more than Berman ever did on his shows. You may quote me next christmas. As for the E looking different that the original: well, what did you expect? They dodged that bullet in TMP by giving her a refit, complete with additional detail. Assuming they had just updated the original as they do here, I'm pretty sure the bitching in 1979 would have been similar to that of 2008. The TOS E does not work on the big screen without alterations. Simple as that, IMO. [Smile]
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Anyone on here who knows naval stuff know when the nomencalture usually gets painted on? Seems silly to have the name on before the hull's even finished...

And actually, in one of the earlier shots, we're panning around behind the ship and the two objects in the forground jutting up at an angle seem to be the nacelle pylons. I always preferred the novel/fandom approach of having the saucer built on the ground and then flying up on thrusters or impulse engines to be fitted to the engineering section that had been assembled in orbit.

I'm interested to see how they reconcile certain things, like the Enterprise being captained by April and Pike before Kirk got her, like Kirk being ten years old when the Enterprise was launched, like McCoy and Scotty being close to twenty years older than Chekov, like none of them having met before all being assigned to the Entperprise just before "Where No Man...", like the Republic, the Farragut, Ben Finney, Gary Mitchell, Ruth, Carol Marcus, the Vulcanian Expedition, Garth of Izar, or the ship Kirk commanded before the Enterprise...

You get the idea. *heh*

--Jonah
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect a ship like the Enterprise to have maybe a few big refits over her operational life - repairing damage sustained in exploration duties, fitting out new technologies etc.

It could be that the Enterprise in the new movie is the ship looking as it did when it was first built, and by the time we came to see it under Pike's command it had already had a major refit. It might even have had another one after Pike's mission and the start of Kirk's. Another possibility is that what the teaser trailer is showing us is not the Enterprise being constructed but rather it undergoing a complete keel-up refit between April's last mission and Pike's first one. That would allow for the ship to have been in existence for longer and still have it on the ground in pieces being soldered together. Thoughts?

Ship aside, I do think they are going to have a hard time trying to fit all of the crew into this film believably - for the older crew, there is enough leeway but Chekov? I think he said he was 22 in "Who mourns for Adonis?" (though I might be wrong, anyone got a clearer recollection?) so unless he's meant to be the Wesley Crusher of the group, he's going to be way too young to have been in Starfleet when Kirk, Spock et al were still in the early stages of their careers.

One thing is for sure - it's going to be an interesting trip to the cinema later this year. I can't help but think, though, that we are all in for a year of bitching, whining, moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth similar to the one that took place in the run-up to the Transformers movie coming out in 2007. :-)
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Which also made me hurt.

--Jonah
 
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
 
Perhaps we're not going to be seeing these characters all in the same time period, but in different periods. You could have our young Chekov being seen just as he's coming on to the Enterprise for the first time during Kirk's command and not seeing him at the Academy with Kirk.
 
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
 
Could be, and would certainly be intersting to the likes of us, but I doubt it will be like Dat suggests - too complicated for the Trek virgins they are trying to lure into the cinema.

The further on this rumbles the more pissed off I'm getting. At me! I hate the whole idea of a reboot, but that trailer still made me gurgle with anticipation in an unanutral way. It's just not fair.
 
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
 
here's more beer bottles in stew (since im still simmering over my flame job with the Washington Noobjob 'E'):

yeah, they got someone to play a youthful chekov and Sulu... does it mean we'll see more than 5 minutes of them in the film?

with old Karl as 'Doc', think of how much screen time he'll soak up...
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
*scratches head* Speaking of "doc" ... what episode did McCoy first appear in, anyway?
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
"The Man Trap." Not the first produced episode of the series proper, but the first aired. I think "Balance of Terror" was first produced, and he was in that too.
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon:
I hate the whole idea of a reboot, but that trailer still made me gurgle with anticipation in an unanutral way. It's just not fair.

I wasn't sure (and am still not entirely certain, if I'm honest) whether this was to be a reboot or something that would fit in with the established backstory, but the official site for the movie has the following text on there:

"Synopsis: From director J.J. Abrams (Mission: Impossible III, Lost and Alias) and screenwriters Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman (TRANSFORMERS, MI: III) comes a new vision of the greatest space adventure of all time, Star Trek, featuring a young, new crew venturing boldly where no man has gone before."

Seems to point more in the direction of a reboot than anything else. Not that I think that would be the very worst thing in the world ever, but it's interesting to see it worded that way. Has there been any clear indications from the producers of the movie on this point - is it expected to fit in with established background story between Enterprise and TOS, or is it a total reboot in a separate continuity?

Quick addition - Roberto Orci has answered some questions about the teaser trailer. There is some interesting stuff in there - they need a gravity well to balance warp nacelles? The only novel I recall mentioning that was "Prime Directive", and that stressed that going to warp in a gravity well could be disastrous...

[ January 20, 2008, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: FawnDoo ]
 
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
 
How much power would it take to tractor a Constitution Class from the surface of San Francisco to orbit? Is it feasible? If so, would this solve the problem... at least pseudo-scientifically?
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
I suppose they could use tractor beams to get it started. The Enterprise doesn't seem to have any problems operating quite low down in an Earth-standard atmosphere - it does so in "Tomorrow is yesterday" quite easily, and is able to fly up into orbit from there. That is, bear in mind, with the ship damaged after an unexpected slingshot/time travel and low enough in the atmosphere to allow a 60s era jet fighter to fly up into visual range. Which would suggest that atmospheric flight isn't a terrible problem for the Constitution class. Maybe not what it was designed for, admittedly, but not outside it's capabilities.

The tractor beams might come in to get the ship moving in the first place. Once things are underway and the ship is high enough to do so safely, the impulse engines kick in and it's next stop, orbit.

Of course there is absolutely no reason why this teaser trailer has to make anyone choose between planetside and orbital construction methods. With the sheer amount of ships being built by the Federation, they might use both methods. Each one might have advantages and disadvantages that the other doesn't, but from the Federation's perspective, would it care? It's a busy, thriving and increasingly under threat interstellar civilization. I dare say it doesn't care where the ships are built as much as it does that they are online, operational and ready to go when needed.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
I figured if it's got artificial gravity, inertial dampers, and impulse engines that make it lighter with static warp fields, that it must be able to 'float' in an anti-gravity fashion. The UFP doesn't seem to have trouble manipulating powerful gravitational and magnetic fields (and quite probably nuclear forces as well, in the transporter).
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
That's an excellent point - with the technology available to the UFP there is nothing to say that starships can't just float themselves off the surface. Come to that, depending on how powerful Federation antigrav technology is, they might even be able to create a zero-G "funnel" for a ship that would allow it to float up right into orbit. They do seem to be pretty good at controlling gravitational and magnetic fields, manipulating spacetime with warp fields, etc - I would imagine lifting a few hundred thousand tons of equipment into orbit wouldn't pose too much of a challenge. The construction area might even be a low gravity area to allow for ease of movement around such a large structure (and ease pressure on the frame being constructed).
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
That is, without a doubt, stupendously retarded.
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Yes, it'd be easier to just build the thing in orbit after all, and generate a force field containing an atmosphere around it. Boom, instant combination of zero-G ease of construction with a shirt-sleeves environment.
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Shik:
That is, without a doubt, stupendously retarded.

Yes, and I recall the same "arguments" being put to me the last time such an idea came before our august company for consideration. [Razz] Well, at least we're consistent! [Wink] Though, like last time, I'd just like to stress that this is just fun. None of this is meant to rile anyone up, ok?

However unlike last time it's not a matter of speculation, it's a matter of canon - which by the way is a word I hate as it embodies everything that's wrong about the sheer weight of self-importance Star Trek's backstory lumbers along with - so it's not for me to refute, is it?

The teaser trailer shows a starship under construction on a planet surface. The executive producer of the film has gone on record in an interview stating that it was built on land. It would stand to reason that if the ship was built on land as shown in the teaser trailer and was next (in terms of the show's chronology) seen in space in "The Cage" then there should have come an intermediate point where the ship stopped being on land and came to be in space - in other words, where it took off, flew through the air and achieved orbit. I'm just having fun imagining the methods as to how this was achieved. [Smile]

Like I said, this is the runup to the Transformers movie all over again! ;-) Though I suppose "stupendously retarded" is better than someone going on a discussion forum and claiming that Michael Bay raped their childhood because Optimus Prime had flame decos on his truck mode! [Smile]

Believe me though when I say I'm just as surprised as anyone at the direction taken in the teaser trailer. Up to now I always assumed the whole "San Francisco" thing on the Enterprise's plaque meant an orbital construction facility located over the city, not somewhere on the planet surface itself...but that's half the fun of being into a show like this, isn't it? [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Lee:
Yes, it'd be easier to just build the thing in orbit after all, and generate a force field containing an atmosphere around it. Boom, instant combination of zero-G ease of construction with a shirt-sleeves environment.

I would agree that the method you propose is also a good way to go about it - the transporter would remove the huge energy cost of getting components up into orbit and the atmosphere would allow construction teams to work on the ship without bulky spacesuits, but I don't know if they would rely purely on a forcefield to keep them alive. Any time we've seen them used on the show has been in a backup capacity, not as the primary means of keeping the air on the inside, so I'm not sure Starfleet would be ok with trusting a lot of lives to a forcefield. Again though, another method the Federation might use to construct ships.

One more idea (my little Columbo moment there) - what if the ship in the teaser trailer is being built on the moon, or another planetary body with micro-gravity conditions? By the time of TNG we know the moon is populated (Riker's lines to Zefram Cochrane in "First Contact" prove as much) so chances are people were on there during TOS. Might it have been given a breathable atmosphere but retained the light gravity, perhaps making it an ideal ship construction environment? There was a mention of a crewman living on the moon once - think it was on DS9..."Valiant", that was it. I'm sure one of the ill-fated cadets in that episode came from Luna. I'll try to dig the ep out at one point and see what was mentioned.

EDIT (update): Ah well, that was nice while it lasted. Memory Alpha has an excellent article on the moon and it would seem that even by DS9's time you still need a suit to go out onto the surface:

"In the 24th century, the moon possesses a lake, called Lake Armstrong, visible from Earth. Since Dorian Collins said one still needs suits to travel on the moon's surface, it is unlikely that this means the moon possesses an atmosphere. Rather, it appears the lake must exist within an enclosed dome. (Star Trek: First Contact; DS9: "Valiant")"

Well, maybe shipyards could also be in enclosed domes? Ones that open up to allow the ship to launch? I can see Starfleet trusting a pressurised dome with a forcefield system as a backup. Any thoughts?
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
If they show Pike, are they going to show any of the other 'members' of Pike's crew? "No. 1"? "Pike's Doctor"?

Hmmm, Angelina Jolie could be a good "No. 1". [Smile]
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
That's a good point, I suppose they might. If they show any of them I'd rather it was the Doctor, because "The Cage" gave the impression that they went back a long way. Pike certainly seemed to adopt a more formal approach with his crew than Kirk did, so I imagine Boyce had a valuable role as the one person on board he could open up to. As for Number One...meh. The character never really seemed all that interesting to me, and the thought of Angelina Jolie bringing her usual multifaceted approach to the role (ie, pout, thrust chest, pout, repeat as required) doesn't exactly fill me with enthusiasm.

I wonder if we will see Spock smile again, like he did in "The Cage"? [Smile]
 
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FawnDoo:
That's an excellent point - with the technology available to the UFP there is nothing to say that starships can't just float themselves off the surface. Come to that, depending on how powerful Federation antigrav technology is, they might even be able to create a zero-G "funnel" for a ship that would allow it to float up right into orbit. They do seem to be pretty good at controlling gravitational and magnetic fields, manipulating spacetime with warp fields, etc - I would imagine lifting a few hundred thousand tons of equipment into orbit wouldn't pose too much of a challenge. The construction area might even be a low gravity area to allow for ease of movement around such a large structure (and ease pressure on the frame being constructed).

Excellent point. it would only be stupid to someone that can't add two and two together and see that if you can control gravity enough to let you walk in one gee comfort... no, if you have command of antigravity sufficient to power deflectors and screens and force fields... NO -- if you can control gravity AND antigravity enough to create a space warp(!), then you'd have absolutely no problem lifting a few hundred thousand tons of starship off the surface of a planet into orbit.

Though I doubt that was the original intent. TMoST says the major components were built on the surface at the San Francisco Navy Yards and lifted into orbit for completion. If this film is true to that intent, the image we see in the teaser is a saucer and nacelles that are either together and will be disassembled for lift into orbit, or that aren't together but just in close proximity.
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
GK front view.
 
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
 
Voyager is stated as massing 700,000 metric tons. We don't know how much a Connie (any iteration of one) weighs, but it'll still be in the neiborhood of 290-300m long IMO. By comparison, a 317m Nimitz-class aircraft carrier displaces around 88,000 metric tons fully loaded.

Now, the NX-01 Enterprise seems to have had no problem whatsoever flying AND fighting in Earth's atmosphere, with no one complaining a bit about it. Likewise, while Voyager made a big deal of entering an atmosphere and landing DRAMATICALLY, I don't think there's any evidence in dialogue that it was a huge deal. And finally, when someone whined about the Defiant entering the atmosphere of a gas giant, I think people were more concerned about the extreme pressure and temperatures more than simply going there.

Anyway, my point is that there has always been evidence that starships can tool around the atmosphere of most planets without any issues. BUILDING them there is still an issue; EVERYTHING NASA has thown at us in forty years has told us that it's simpler to build stuff in space rather than on Earth and launching it skyward.

The picture itself is fine by me; I'm just wondering why it looks like they're building the Enterprise rather than just refitting it for the time Pike hands it over to Kirk.

Mark
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Nguyen:
Anyway, my point is that there has always been evidence that starships can tool around the atmosphere of most planets without any issues.

It's worth pointing out that the much larger Galaxy class has also operated in atmospheres ("Arsenal of Freedom") and the much harsher environments to be found in close proximity to stars ("I, Borg", "Descent") so as you say, it's well and truly established that they can operate in and around a planet/atmosphere/extreme gravity well quite handily. I just don't see it as much of a jump from there to say they could possibly lift off from a standing start.

quote:
The picture itself is fine by me; I'm just wondering why it looks like they're building the Enterprise rather than just refitting it for the time Pike hands it over to Kirk.
To be honest I think it could be either - the ship might be in the advanced stages of construction or it could be in the middle of an extensive refit (similar in scale to the one it went through between TOS and TMP).

I'm sure Pike states the crew complement of the Enterprise in "The Cage" as being in the 200 range, while in Kirk's time it was always in the 400 range, so something had to happen to allow for such a rise in the crew - upgrades to the saucer, larger life support systems, installation of more complex machinery requiring more crew to maintain it, etc etc.

IMO there is enough scope for the possibility of the teaser trailer being a refit scene, but as I said it could also be the ship being built for the first time. I'd rather it was a refit, to be honest, for the reasons stated previously - that it allows the established history of the ship and crew to (mostly) fit in as expected.
 
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
Wouldn't a warp-field lower the apparent mass of what is contained with in that field - relative to the surrounding universe? Isn't that what happens?

Or, anti-grav units.

I'm picturing the launch of the Prometheus in Stargate-SG1 here.
 
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
 
Is there any precedence in other material for space-going vessels being assembled on a planetary surface? Two examples that come close in my mind are the Archangel from Gundam SEED and the Minerva from Gundam SEED Destiny, but to be accurate they were constructed on the PLANTs and the Minerva was launched by an elevator going from the surface to space...

EDIT: Andrew swept in ahead of me. I had forgotten about the Prometheus. And all the rest of the ships were built at Area 51 as well, I believe. The Asgard were constructing the O'Neill on the planet's surface, too, as I recall.
 
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
 
Well, it was floating above it by some distance, and assuming it was being built there, antigravity would be a huge part of it. Do YOU imagine seeing all those little grey guys asssembling ANYTHING by hand?

Also, the Archangel was built secretly at Heliopolis, but in the zero-gravity core of the asteroid portion of the colony. Minerva was apparently built under gravity conditions, and "launched" a la dropship from "Aliens" in an ultra-cool sequence that gave me shivers. [Smile]

Mark
 
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
 
I guess what I was getting at was the launching mechanisms for the ships. The Minerva was launched through that elevator-thing but the Archangel just flew out of a hole in Heliopolis... it was probably going to be launched in a similar manner as the Minerva, though. But we know that within the tech of the Cosmic Era, the Archangel still needs a mass driver to reach orbit (then again, antigrav seems to be limited in usage in these shows).
 
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
 
Getting a little off topic here... But in the case of the Archangel, the regular hatches out of the asteroid base were destroyed by ZAFT. That's why they powered up her positron cannons and blasted their way out the OTHER end of the asteroid, into the pressurized colony cylinder itself. Heliopolis was ultimately destroyed thanks to this, plus all the fighting that was going on inside over the first three episodes.

Other cool ship launchings we've seen, for comparison:

-The NSEA Protector from its spacedock in "Galaxy Quest"

-seaQuest launching SLOWLY and only when the tides were right

-Gunstar One in "The Last Starfighter"

-The SDF-1 Macross launching via antigrav, falling back to Earth when the AG engines tore away from the ship because they were too strong, and then launching again via conventional rockets

Mark
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Wow, first time on the old computer today, and I find my ideas being called "stupendously retarded" by proxy :-( I have to echo Fondue (sorry dude) about this... It doesn't matter what's easier. It's a matter of canon. If the ship in the movie went from ground to orbit, it had to do it *some*how, so we have to speculate on what would be the easiest way to get the ship from ground to orbit, nevermind if it would be easier to do it in orbit to begin with. That's not up to us, it's up to Abrams and the writers.

Little update: For my own off-topic contribution about ships launching from planetary surface, back to Stargate again - the Ha'tak motherships were shown being built in an antigravity cradle on the surface of a planet; the Ori motherships were built on the ground itself; the Aurora-class Orion (or Hipaphoralcus(sp?? yeah right) if you prefer ;P) was kept in a hangar on the ground and presumably would launch itself into orbit somehow on the days that it wasn't riding a volcano's eruption out of the hangar and hyper-jumping to orbit.
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
If you want unlikely atmospheric behavior, any of the new Star Wars movie will give you that ;P
 
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
 
Hmm, the Ha'taks have been shown being built sans major scaffolding or supports on multiple occasions, and on the ground too. I can't remember why they needed to use the AG harness in "Orpheus", the only episode to show this; mind you, it was a pretty convenient plot point to NEED to disable the AG systems to distract everybody.

Also, good point on the Ori ships. They're bloody HUGE, and not really even on their ventral sides to land (even though they're seen landing in some episodes). OTOH, most of these ships are built by slave labour on primitive worlds. It MIGHT make sense that in the rush to build many ships in a short time, they forego making huge spaceyards and enough spacesuits for everyotn in favor of a slightly harder engineering challenge in building things in a gravity well.

Mark
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
Oh wonderful, so I'm not even being called "stupendously retarded" based on my own merits? [Smile] Tough day! To me the simplest method would be to construct the ship and allow it to raise itself up off the ground. A combination of antigrav, impulse engines and warp fields would be enough to get the ship lifted and on its way.

As for ships launching from ground to space, the only ones that spring to mind are from Transformers (god help me!): the Ark and the Nemesis launched to space from Cybertron's surface in "More than meets the eye" (G1) and the Axalon and the Nemesis (again) launched from the surface of Earth during Beast Wars. Admittedly the Axalon crashed shortly after takeoff, but the Nemesis not only took off, but did so from underwater.

Oh no, hang on, what about the Valen class cruiser in B5: LotR? That landed on Minbar, as I recall, and took off from there with no problems. And that ship, at 1,300 metres long (at least according to this site) is pretty big, and probably pretty heavy.

That said (ooh, brainstorm!), would the ships built by the Master during Doctor Who's "year that never was" count? They looked more like rockets, but then again we never really got a good sense of scale - they could have been huge for all we know. Granted they never got to take off, but they were built planetside.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
One might note that no one has yet built, in the sense we're talking about, anything in space. The closest we've come is ISS, which is built here on Earth and then "merely" assembled in space.

(Lately I've seen claims that Roddenberry's original Star Trek writer's guide said the Enterprise was constructed in such a manner. Does anyone know more about this than I do?)
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
Space isn't far away. You could drive there in an hour if you could drive straight up. Given all the amazing technology of Trek, the notion that a Constitution Class starship can't make the hop without help is odd. Hell, a busted-ass NX could fly around New York skyscrapers.

Compare this to, for instance, the refit Enterprise in ST:TMP, which went from Earth to Jupiter in 1.8 hours. The distance from Earth to Jupiter is quite variable over their respective orbits, but I decided to try narrowing it down a bit. According to the excellent space simulation program Celestia, the example date of July 4, 2271 gives us a distance of 4.773 AU from Earth to Jupiter, or over 714,000,000 kilometers (about .66 light-hours). That's an average speed of 110,191,481.5m/s. Assuming a constant acceleration over those 1.8 hours (and thus the lowest possible acceleration value), the ship would have had to reach a final speed of 220,382,963 m/s (0.73512c), assuming a start from zero. That would be, then, a constant acceleration of just over 34,000 m/s, or over 3,460g.

Earth holds us down with all of 1g, meaning the Constitution Class would have in the neighborhood of 3,459g to spare. The ship could basically sneeze and inadvertently reach orbit.
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
I wonder where this is:

http://trekmovie.com/images/sttease/sttease_01.jpg

On top of a nacelle?
 
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
IIRC, Picard's final log entry in Generations mentioned that they just had ligh casualties but that the Enterprise could not be salvaged. I always thought that he was implying that the ship had suffered too severe structural damage (from the BoP attack, the Warp core explosion and the more or less uncontrolled entry into Veridian's atmosphere), but otherwise it would have been no problem to get the saucer back into space. Maybe it was just a matter of "it's easier to build a new one than to repair this one".

Most of the capital in the new SW trilogy are able to land on a planet (for loading/unloading troops and equipment for example). While I do *not* want to imply that Star Trek has anything in common with Star Wars - [Wink] - but today, we seem to be more open towards the whole landing-on-a-planet-thing that back in the days of TOS or the original trilogy. Maybe this is related to simple technical restictions of that time? It's easy to do that stuff today with CGI (SW, Stargate etc.), but it would have looked stupid back in the days of TMP I guess, while a spacedock-launch in TOS or even TMP was quite impressive even in the late 70's if done right. Just an idea.
 
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lee:
I wonder where this is:

http://trekmovie.com/images/sttease/sttease_01.jpg

On top of a nacelle?

I'd say between the pylons on the secondary hull, facing aft over the top of the hanger deck.
It would explain why the nacelles look so HUGE if they're not actually attached yet in this shot and are just out of position.

As for the whole landing issue; for years we've accepted that the saucer could land quite happily by itself, but for the whole ship I think it's only practical if there's a purpose built docking berth for it to sit on. I can't see much space being allocated in the secondary hull for landing gear.

The only potential problem I have with it's take off abilities is that I'm not sure the thrusters are man enough by themselves and using the impulse engines might not be a good idea, at least until it's clear of the drydock. Perhaps the real function of those red triangles under the saucer are the take off thrusters with the "plasma vents" on the pylons as stabilisers. [Wink]
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
I have to agree with Lee, I think this is the top of a nacelle, looking aft - the two protrusions on either side are the ones at the end of each nacelle.

If those are just ordinary human beings standing on it - say, within a range of five to six feet or so tall - then I would expect the engineering hull to be a lot wider than that, with multiple rooms, corridors, turbolift shafts on each deck.

I'm more interested in this image - if that's the underside of the saucer in the distance, what's that guy welding in the foreground? One of the nacelle pylons?
 
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
 
That's what my guess was. Which would mean that the pieces are being built and then assembled into one ship.
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
From having looked at the pic, I'd wager that it's actually on the back of the nacelle, between what used to be called intercoolers (the little short fin thingies on the top rear of the nacelles) looking forward.

I feel confident that the Gabe Koerner-esque ramscoop enlargements actually appear on the Enterprise (as indicated by the 45-degree lines sweeping up and back from the bottom of the ramscoop spinners), and thus that the hump we see in the distance in the pic is in fact the front of the nacelle.

The scale seems right-ish for standing near the intercoolers . . . see the end of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq0wVRuUFLk
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
I much preferred the idea that the saucer was built on the surface, the nacelles were manufactured in some orbital facility, with microgravity casting for the warp coils to cool homogenously, and the secondary hull built in the orbital drydock. That is, all the antimatter-using systems are never on a planetary surface.

And I know this isn't what's shown in this new movie. Doesn't mean I accept the new version. [Razz]

Incidentally, Jeffries/fandom have long held that the Enterprise massed about 190,000 metric tonnes. And Kirk had Sulu head out of Earth-local space at "warp point-five", which is 0.5c. We have a pretty good timeline from leaving dock to that order, so someone who likes math more than I do can calcualte how proximal Earth and Jupiter were for Enterprise to make it there in 1.8 hours. [Wink]

--Jonah
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
Scotty in "Mudd's Women" refers to nearly a million gross tons, e.g. nearly a million long tons. So that ship's gotta be sitting on some bedrock or something. [Smile]

I'm more alarmed at the A-shape corridors that look even less futuristic than the Battlestar Galactica corridors:

Compare the corridor seen here:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/21/star-trek-teaser-trailer-online-now/

to this:

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Image:Galactica_corridor.jpg
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
I'm more alarmed at the A-shape corridors that look even less futuristic than the Battlestar Galactica corridors

I'm curious as to how exactly you define "less futuristic"-looking. Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. The corridors from "The Cage" would make for a better reference point.
 
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
 
What the hell... that's new-ish...

I hope that this isn't a way to show the surface of San Francisco Fleet Yards. Then again we can't rule it out just yet til the film is out there.
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
Well, there are only so many ways you can make a corridor look futuristic, so I don't mind if they have gone with something a little more realistic. Surely we don't need tin-foil squares and brightly coloured walls? Mind you, if it's still under construction then they might be waiting for the interior decorators to come in with the big pots of paint in primary colours...
 
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
Pike's E was never as hippie-looking and colorful as Kirk's. I think the corridor shot matches the style of "The Cage" pretty good. BEsides, we don't even know when exactly we're going to see that image on screen, if ever. Maybe it's still missing the plates to cover those pipes on the wall. And it's basically black and white. It might look more TOSish with fancy lighting. [Smile]
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
Yeah, in some ways "The Cage" looked more futuristic than the later series. It was made for black and white broadcast, and the interiors were mostly grey.

I don't know (or want to know) anything about the exact setting of this movie, but if they're going by the commonly accepted chronology, what we see in the trailer would be 2245-ish, right? Unless it's a refit instead of the actual construction. And the first captain isn't Pike or Kirk, but April, and he hasn't been mentioned once. In fact, in 2245, Kirk would've been around 12... maybe this is where we will see his mom and dad?
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Haven't we seen enough teasers featuring material not included in the final film to now assume that just because the teaser for this film depicts the construction of the Enterprise (and is very much intended to illustrate that the film is an ongoing work in progress), it doesn't mean that we will see the same scenes in the finished film or that the film will be set in the same time period?
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
I suppose that's possible, but then again it could just as easily be included in the movie, and until we know for sure one way or another I guess it's up in the air. Orci's interview stresses that the construction site isn't Area 51 but he is not willing to state where it actually is, which would lead me to think that there's a plot point tied up in there somewhere.

If the teaser was intended to operate purely as a standalone piece of work, with no ties to the movie story and just intended to be presented as a flashy visual sequence to get people talking, would he be coy about aspects of the details? Well, ok, maybe he would just for the sake of it, but I just have a feeling that there's something there he couldn't reveal without going into something from the movie that he doesn't want to.

quote:
Originally posted by Harry:
And the first captain isn't Pike or Kirk, but April, and he hasn't been mentioned once.

The bit in Orci's interview that interests me is this:

TrekMovie.com: But this does seem to fall into one of those canon grey areas where you guys made a call.

Roberto Orci: Exactly


As I recall April's only on-screen appearance was in TAS, and is that considered canon? I mean, outside of the books and chronologies, is there anything more concrete to support his ever having been there, or is he in a grey area the producers of the new movie could make a call on? Could be his coat's on a shoogly peg, canonically speaking! [Smile]
 
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
 
I'm not THAT hip on A-shaped corridors, unless there's a REASON they need to be narrower on top. disguising power conduits, whatever. The "D"-shaped corrodors on the E-Refit did just that, including storage lockers and even a personal shelter(!) in some iterations. Nothing like that here. If anything, the narrower top makes it more difficult for two handsome actors to walk and talk side by side, without their handsome broad shoulders bumping into the walls all the time.

Moreover, what's with the spot lighting? I know darker = cooler lately, and the NX-01 corridors confirms it, but if you're running around on a spaceship in the middle of battle, you want to know where your feet are falling. Incandescent lighting ROCKS, people.

Mark
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
Is there perhaps a structural reason? Could be the A-frame can handle more weight, stress etc (though as you say, it could just be to provide space at the top to hide power conduits, cabling etc). As for the actors I suppose it all depends how wide the A shape is - cold be big enough for two people to stand side by side (though that would make the ceilings quite high). Anyone here a real-world engineer that could tell us if the A-frame has any application beyond "looks interesting"?
 
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Nguyen:
I'm not THAT hip on A-shaped corridors, unless there's a REASON they need to be narrower on top. disguising power conduits, whatever. The "D"-shaped corrodors on the E-Refit did just that, including storage lockers and even a personal shelter(!) in some iterations. Nothing like that here. If anything, the narrower top makes it more difficult for two handsome actors to walk and talk side by side, without their handsome broad shoulders bumping into the walls all the time.

Moreover, what's with the spot lighting? I know darker = cooler lately, and the NX-01 corridors confirms it, but if you're running around on a spaceship in the middle of battle, you want to know where your feet are falling. Incandescent lighting ROCKS, people.

Mark

The shuttlecraft's hatch is the same shape.
 
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
 
As far as I can tell TAS is not canon. I know I've seen discussions both ways on this point. Even here people have gone back and forth on it.

But there isn't an official source to point to that lists what is canon and what isn't. At least, I've not seen it.

The writers, however, have done a great deal of work in sliding in enough points from TAS that pretty soon it's all going to be canon.

That's probably what makes April a grey area. He's mentioned in TAS and the novels, yet those aren't officially canon. So if another writer wants to work him in at some point in an official movie or television series, then that'd be great.
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
TAS didn't become "canon" until Paramount started selling the DVDs. Paramount all of a sudden declaring it canon was just a marketing ploy to get supernerds like us to buy them. Paramount didn't give two shits about the animated series until it could make more money for them. Sound familiar?
 
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dukhat:
TAS didn't become "canon" until Paramount started selling the DVDs. Paramount all of a sudden declaring it canon was just a marketing ploy to get supernerds like us to buy them. Paramount didn't give two shits about the animated series until it could make more money for them. Sound familiar?

TP bardum comes to mind (but that's covers everything from infromutials to QTV to buying Storm Force Bows for Diablo II & Exp, or my personal favorite, buying gold or magic for DDO, everytime i see spam when i play DDO)

Cannon used to mean something, but having learned my lessons from the Macross frantise (Macross II is alternate Universe but Macross 7's big ass Kijui Monsters is Cannon? Song Force? Ol' B-boy sings the bad old Spirtia into ACLU compliance?), cannon pretty much is written, just history to Victor Whores, by who holds the Copywrite for the property after all...

Lee: TU for the Link.

/me drags the topic back into Oncoming traffic...

back to the fact that the Ent Nil is being built somewhere in SF, i ask again: HOW MANY other Conny's are being built? or any other classes? Is SFSS a large facility? i'm really curious how indepth the makers of the film are thinking about this... and whether or not certain legal ships might be finally brought to life?
 
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
The welder speaks:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/21/teaser-welder-talks-trek/
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Harry:
Yeah, in some ways "The Cage" looked more futuristic than the later series. It was made for black and white broadcast, and the interiors were mostly grey.

I always liked the colour scheme from "The Cage" better. [Smile]

quote:
I don't know (or want to know) anything about the exact setting of this movie, but if they're going by the commonly accepted chronology, what we see in the trailer would be 2245-ish, right? Unless it's a refit instead of the actual construction. And the first captain isn't Pike or Kirk, but April, and he hasn't been mentioned once. In fact, in 2245, Kirk would've been around 12... maybe this is where we will see his mom and dad?
I already mentioned April and that Kirk was, in fact, ten at the time. [Razz]

--Jonah
 
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
 
On Welding:

Still, that's cool. How many folks in Hollywood when they act a profession actually have experiance as that role requires?

Cool, Cool.
 
Posted by Mirror-Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
I suppose there will be other starfleet ships in the new movie (Republic anyone?). Besides the chance to finally get rid of Okuda's "every TOS ship ever mentioned has to be a Constitution", I wonder if

Forgot what I wanted to say. Dammit. Never work in three browser windows at once... [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
Oooh, an Abraham Simpson moment. Thought I was the only one who got those. [Smile]
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peregrinus:
I already mentioned April and that Kirk was, in fact, ten at the time. [Razz]

James T. Kirk: born 2233. (Supposedly on March 22, but that's not exactly canon.) And 2245 minus 2233 equals 12. [Razz] [Razz]
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Oh, please don't go by the official Chronology without qurestioning the datapoints. *heh* He was "about 34" in the TOS Bible, and his birthday in 2285, fifteen years later, was his 50th (granted, script only, but that drove Shatner's performance and Myers' direction). Simple math, if this is 2245.

I wonder anew if this was some huge rebuilding of the Enterprise. New bridge, new engines, bigger crew complement... Maybe we're seeing the prevous big refit just before Kirk took command. That would jibe with Morrow's "twenty years old" line in Star Trek III. [Smile]

The only real problem still lies in the Chronology's placement of TOS and TMP. If Kirk was indeed born in 2233 nd "about 34" in early TOS, than TOS had to start around 2267 at the earliest. Counting back the other way, from his 50th in 2285, means he was "about 34" in 2269. And so on, and so on. Would have been better if the Okudas had hired a real researcher familiar with the Star Trek Expanded Universe to shore up dating referents. [Razz]

--Jonah
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Your link is broken, Mim.
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness:
[QB] [QUOTE]HOW MANY other Conny's are being built? or any other classes? [QB]

Technically, it's very possible that the Big E is the only one in construction there. I think the only other properly 'canon' (I do so hate that word) 17xx range vessel would the the Constitution herself, which may be already operational at this point, or in construction at some other facility. Showing other starships in the docks would probably diminish the 'wow-factor' of seeing the Enterprise under construction, I guess. I wouldn't expect any more starships in the surface docks.

But I would love to finally see some (2008 style) 23rd century contemporaries, that aren't cargo drones or weird TAS things, but proper Starfleet cruisers.
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
What would absolutely wreck my brain would be to see the huge size of the Enterprise, all the work going into making her operational, all the slow loving pans...

...And then pull up into a crane shot to see several more in various earlier stages of construction, and tugs lifting a completed ship off the skids with "NCC-1700" clear on the nacelles and under-saucer. Impulse engines warm up and ignite, and the Constitution pulls away from the tugs. And a few seconds later, we get kicked in the chest as the pressure wave hits our vantage.

Or something. I think two or three graving docks of that size in San Francisco would be acceptable. With more for smaller designs, and some repair drydocks off to the side...

--Jonah
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
Your link is broken, Mim.

Copy & paste it. I guess TrekCore doesn't allow hotlinking anymore.
 
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
I don't think it take away from the uniqueness of the Big E to have other ships being constructed on screen. It adds to the realism that this is a shipyard. As long as the the other ships aren't the center of attention I don't think it would be a big deal.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
TP bardum.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
This is all a lot different than I always imagined it, anyway. I always figured the spaceframe and deck plates and hull plates would all be installed and assembled by large robotic arms, and the interior wiring and 'decorating' (ie computers, lights, ducts, pipes) would be done by workers. I didn't think that getting these futuristic metals together could be done with simple welding, at least not at a temperature allowing a human to do it safely by hand.
 
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
 
hey.

has anybody know what this site is about? http://www.ncc-1701.com/
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
quote:
Registrant:
Domain Admin
Paramount Pictures
5555 Melrose Ave MOB 1209
Hollywood CA 90038
US
website_contact@paramount.com +1.3239566000 Fax: -

Domain Name: ncc-1701.com

Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com
Registrar Whois: whois.markmonitor.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.markmonitor.com

Administrative Contact:
Domain Admin
Paramount Pictures
5555 Melrose Ave MOB 1209
Hollywood CA 90038
US
website_contact@paramount.com +1.3239566000 Fax: -

etc etc. So Paramount owns it, hence it's some kind of promo for the movie.
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
It's called "viral marketing." Look into it.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Seriously though, TP bardum.
 
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
 
You mean P.T. Barnum?
 
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brown_supahero:
hey.

has anybody know what this site is about? http://www.ncc-1701.com/

Been there, done that.

And Dan, you are a schmuck. [Razz]
 
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
 
I wonder if they'll change what plays in the cameras as the movie nears completion, to show the progression of the ship's construction.
 
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
 
It's just footage from the teaser, so no, it won't.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Me?? Schmuck? What did I do? : (((
 
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
It's just that you went through so much trouble to find out who owns ncc-1701.com .
 
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
 
And in an earlier thread about the teaser, the link was already talked about, and someone found that it belonged to Paramount. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Eh, trouble? I went to whois.net and typed an address in, it took ten seconds.
 
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
 
It's not just footage from the teaser. If you leave it alone for about ten minutes one of the images switches to a corridor, which is something not seen in the teaser.

This was all discussed here about 4 months ago though.
 
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
 
After 27 days I also saw a brief glimpse of what I believe is Scotty's left foot.

Must. Stay. Awake.
 
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
 
After 32 days you get to see part of the turbolift door on the bridge.
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
163 days gets you Uhura's showercam.

164 days gets you McCoy's.
 
Posted by OverRon (Member # 2036) on :
 
How many days to get Kirk's toilet cam? *shudders*
 
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
 
Oh, that'll be installed on Tuesday. [Wink]
 
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
 
And Kirk's toilet will be installed on thursday. Seems like starfleet to me... [Wink]
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
*whipser* He was quoting Harriman from Generations.
 
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
 
*pssst* I know.
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
*sshhh* Ok just making sure.
 
Posted by JernejL (Member # 2094) on :
 
Okay, i don't see why is there such a fuss because of a ship was built on surface rather than a spacedock, especially since we seen that starfleet does build ships on surfaces and in space at the same time, for example:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Utopia_Planitia
 
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
 
Yes we know that.
 
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
 
It might be be a big deal because, we as fandom, must spend the endless months before the movie comes out trying to figure out how exactly they got the ship from the surface to space. [Big Grin]

Oh, and welcome to Flare,JernejL.
 
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
 
Welcome to Flare... and ships are BUILT IN ORBIT!!!!

Just kidding... somewhat.
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
Your MOM was built in orbit.
 
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
 
No... she was built by the devil... with a Catholic iron fist!

Only Federation starships are built in orbit.
 
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mikey T:
No... she was built by the devil... with a Catholic iron fist!

Only Federation starships are built in orbit.

using union underwear gnomes (local 1701 UUgW) i'm certain (since halflings would be too smart to fuck with all this...

oh, Hi Newbie.
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Because it seems inefficient and wasteful to have to find a way to hold those massive, massive engines up on those spindly little pylons until the ship is finished, and then make sure the spaceframe isn't damaged by the stresses of hauling all that mass out of the gravity well.

Much, much easier to just build the ship (or at least the most massive parts of it) in the microgravity to orbital space. I don't have any problem with components being built on the surface and then boosted to be assembled in orbit, but not the whole ship -- not as delicate as that design was.

--Jonah
 
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
 
Yeah, I agree. something like the Defiant wouldn't bee to hard to construct on the surface though, or at least, it looks a lot sturdier than the Connie.
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peregrinus:
Because it seems inefficient and wasteful to have to find a way to hold those massive, massive engines up on those spindly little pylons until the ship is finished, and then make sure the spaceframe isn't damaged by the stresses of hauling all that mass out of the gravity well.

I really don't see a problem with the pylons holding up the nacelles - this is, remember, a ship made with extremely advanced engineering and construction techniques, composed of god-knows-what kind of superstrong materials, reinforced with all sorts of forcefield technologies, all of which are designed to operate in tandem and hold the ship together when it is moving faster than light, or being shot at, operating in inhospitable environments (close to planets, suns, stellar phenomena, black holes etc) etc etc. Hell, if the crew are having a bad day, it might be all of those things at once! :-)

I just don't buy the idea that the ship is flimsy or in some way lacking the strength to handle lifting off from a standing start on a planetary surface. It's not made out of balsa wood and rice paper and it's designed to operate in (and survive) far more dangerous environments and far worse stresses than taking off, so where does this idea come from that it's spindly or in some way not sturdy? [Wink]
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
Exactly what I was going to say, cheese dip. You have my agreement and support.
 
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
 
Thank you very much! [Smile]
 
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
When the SIF and IDF are operating, yes. Which I don't expect whilst the vessel is still being welded together.

The warp coils are made in microgravity furnaces in orbit, so the alloys are perfectly blended and not stratified at all. They're the most massive parts of the ship. Why make them off the surface, land them, assemble the engine, attach them to the ship, and then use the impulse engines and thrusters (and probably tugs) to lift them back off the surface?

(And warp drive is non-Newtonian. You could cross the galaxy at a standstill, relatively speaking. [Wink] )

--Jonah
 
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
 
quote:
When the SIF and IDF are operating, yes. Which I don't expect whilst the vessel is still being welded together.
Why not? You don't think they're capable of projecting them from the construction facility?

When did they say on-screen the coils are made in orbit? Anyway they have anti-gravity, hence they could build the coils - or, say, the whole ship - in micro-gravity on the surface.

Did they ever say it's non-Newtonian, even, on-screen? They definitely have inertial dampers for *some* reason after all. Even if the *warp* drive is non-Newtonian, the impulse drive sure isn't. Hence the name. And the accelerations involved in getting up to full impulse, which is .25c, in any reasonable amount of time are still a hell of a lot more than 9.8m/s^2.
 


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3