From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: your.name@isp.com   
   Subject: Re: Abrams' Trek Sequel To Be Released 29 June 2012   
      
      
   "Jaxtraw"  wrote in message   
   news:4b4b4ae8$0$2481$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...   
   > Your Name wrote:   
   > > In article <4b49617c$0$2474$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, "Jaxtraw"   
   > >  wrote:   
   > >> Anim8rFSK wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Actually no.  We kept *hoping* they were fixing things, stuff Abrams   
   > >>> had said during the shoot that he couldn't address in the script   
   > >>> because of a writer's strike, or add The Shat, or fix that   
   > >>> embarrassingly bad shot of the Big E sitting on the ground, but I'm   
   > >>> told they locked the film months before they released it and just   
   > >>> sat on it.   
   > >>   
   > >> And what, pray tell, was wrong with the beauty shot of the Ent under   
   > >> construction? Would have been better if they'd only been wise enough   
   > >> to ask you to do it, would it?   
   > >   
   > > The original Enterprise (and Kirk's later ones) weren't constructed on   
   > > Earth and didn't have the ability to land / take off from a planet.   
   > > It was built in Space Dock.   
   >   
   > I don't remember anybody in TOS describing the construction of the   
   > Enterprise at all. Can you point me at the episode in which they described   
   > where it was built?   
      
   From the Star Trek Encyclopedia ...   
      
        Enterprise, USS   
        Perhaps the most famous spacecraft in the history of   
        space exploration, the original USS Enterprise was a   
        Constitution-class vessel, registry number NCC-1701.   
        Launched in 2245 from the San Francisco Yards   
        ORBITING Earth, ...   
      
   My emphasis on "orbiting". Some either the idiots of "new Star Trek" either   
   skipped over, didn't bother to research at all, or simply something else   
   they decided to change to a ridiculous idea.   
      
      
      
   > In practical terms, there's no reason why they wouldn't construct   
   starships   
   > on a planet's surface. Ships aren't built in the sea, you know.   
      
   Apples and oranges. Ships can be slid into the sea with very little effort   
   (comparatively). Trying to launch a large spaceship from Earth (especially   
   one that isn't even remotely airodynamic!) is extremely difficult and   
   expensive. It makes MUCH more sense to build such large ships in orbit.   
      
   With the exception of Voyager, none of the Star Trek starships were designed   
   to land on nor take off from a planet, and none ever have. Even Beavis &   
   Butthead's garbage "Enterprise" show had the ship built in orbit.   
      
      
      
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: Ihug Ltd (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)