From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com
Subject: Re: Abrams' Trek Sequel To Be Released 29 June 2012
Your Name wrote:
> "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, ...
Er, so you have a book based on extrapolation from the TV show, okay.
> 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.
Well, since we're picking at language, to use the seagoing ships example
again, they tend to be built in a dry dock, then launched into the sea, then
fitted out in the water. So, it's entirely possible for the hull to be
constructed on Earth, then launched into space, fitted out, then officially
launched from orbit; that is, the launching *ceremony*, the official
"launch" is in space. It says nothing about where construction of the
spaceframe occurred.
Plus, you're in a different timeline. This isn't the same Enterprise. Maybe
the construction preferences between the two timelines differ.
Lots of options.
>> 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.
Well, now you're trying to apply 20th century thinking to an imaginary 24th
century. They have anti-gravity, they have "structural integrity fields".
They can turn inertia on and off. They can accelerate starships using a
non-relativistic impulse drive to near light speed; which equates to a
phenomenal acceleration.
Really, you can't decide what makes sense with such radically different
technology. They're not pushing the thing up on a Saturn V, are they?
One thing we can say reasonably though is that initial construction of the
spaceframe in a zero-G vacuum would be awkward. It's a tough environment to
work in, it's dangerous, and inconvenient. You drop your screwdriver, it
disappears off into another orbit. There may be very good reasons to build
an airtight hull in the managable environment of a planet's surface, then
boost that into space and fit out in orbit.
Heck, we do know from canon (TMP and FC) that spacesuits in the future are
still quite bulky and awkward. They're hardly ever used in the show. Would
you want to be manhandling big bits of metal about wearing one of them? I
wouldn't.
Really, it doesn't make much "sense" to start construction in orbit at all.
> 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.
Back with ships, ships constructed on land aren't designed to be amphibious
either.
> Even Beavis & Butthead's garbage "Enterprise" show had the ship built
> in orbit.
Good for them.
Ian
--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
* Origin: Zen Internet (1:2320/105.97)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux
* Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)
|
