Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Static Galaxy-class spaceframes at UP's surface base?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lee: [QB] Individual interpretation is all very well, but there has to be a point where we all agree. And, Like I said, I just don't buy the idea of all ships being built planetside. One or two, maybe, for testbed purposes (and, yes, training) but I'd bet those components were never intended to be merged, let along the completed ship boosted to space. (in fact, logically, if that was an early prototype, wouldn't it really be a Nebula, not a Galaxy?) Nonsensical things like "San Francisco Fleet Yards" aside, all evidence we've seen suggests ships are constructed in orbital facilities. My belief is that the pro-to-con ratio of orbital assembly outweighs (and may even be the inverse of) the pro-to-con ratio of building them on [i]terra firma[/i]. I'm as fond of argument as anyone else here, but sometimes we need to be realistic (as realistic as you can be when talking about fictional ships in a make-believe show!). Mike'n'Rick created this single little image twelve or thirteen years ago. Back then the idea of people freeze-framing their VCRs hardly occurred to them, let alone the concept of DVD screengrabs. It's a trifle, something done on a whim, I doubt they intended to imply that all ships are built on the ground. There can't be any resolution to this question. It's a discovery notified over subspace, a Yamato registry, a James R Kirk. You can still debate the question, God knows we've little enough else to talk about these days, but don't be surprised if I occasionally call you a silly billy! 8) [/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