Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
1701 built on earth's surface?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: [QB] 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. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3