Thread: Enterprise Pic
View Single Post
Old January 23 2008, 08:33 PM   #448
Vektor
Rear Admiral
 
Vektor's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: Enterprise Pic

BolianAdmiral said:
Why I hate it... I hate it from a logistical standpoint. There is NO reason for the 1701 to be built on land, when ships even OLDER that it were built in orbit... the NX-01, and that "Venture Star"-looking ship in the opening credits of ENT. Why would a ship MORE advanced, need to be built on a surface? Even IF it were feasable to build a ship as massive as a Constitution-Class on land... with Trek's technology... why would you? All you would be doing, is assembling major components, only to have to devote (waste) even MORE time, manpower, and energy (and cost), to then transport all those massive components into space... expenditures that would have been totally avoided, by building the whole shebang in orbit from the get-go.
I really donít understand why some people have such a hard time with the concept of building a starship on the ground. Sure, Iíll grant that it is counterintuitive and downright implausible when viewed from our own 21st century frame of reference where gravity is the main impediment to our conquest of space, but we already know that gravity is basically a non-issue in Trek from at least the 23rd century on. Trek starships routinely zip around solar systems with little or no regard to gravitational influences or acceleration stresses that would make lifting off from the Earthís surface no more consequential than a minor course adjustment. Just because Starfleet doesnít include surface landings and takeoffs in their mission profiles doesnít mean they are too fragile to support themselves or donít have enough power to go pretty much anywhere they damn well please short of close approaches to neutron stars and black holes.

As has already been mentioned by me as well as others, in just one episode of TOS, Tomorrow is Yesterday, it was clearly established that the Enterprise is quite capable of descending to within a few miles of the Earthís surface, hovering at speeds slow enough for a 1960s jet aircraft to catch up with it, and then climbing back out again with no more ill effects than a slightly sluggish helm.

As to why older ships like the NX-01 would have been built in orbit, well, that actually makes perfect sense if you think about it. The technology for getting big ships off the surface and into space didnít always exist any more than it does today, it had to be developed along with everything else. For all we know, the NX-01 and its sister ships may have been the last to be built in orbit, largely because the infrastructure was already in place. But then somebody figured out that you could build an entire starship, or at least the parts and pieces of one, in a shirtsleeve, normal gravity environment without having to worry about pressurization, solar and cosmic radiation, micro meteors and all the other hazards that go along with human beings trying to build something in space. You donít need travel pods or transporters just to get your workers to the job site. You donít need work pods or thruster packs to maneuver components and hold things in place, just good old fashioned cranes, conveyor belts and scaffolding. And when youíre done, you just power up the engines and fly it into space, or you neutralize its mass and pull it up with tractor beams, or you attach anti-grav tugs to it and do the same thing, or any of a dozen other equally plausible methods given the technology at your disposal.

Once you take the logistics of getting into orbit out of the equation, the question is not what reason is there to build the ship on land, the question is what reason is there to build it in space? Probably there would still be a few good reasons, but would they outweigh the advantages of an Earth-normal construction environment? Arguably not.

The last thing I don't like about the scene, is the look... I LIKE the fact that they are making it so realistic... THAT element I do like... very much... but it is clear they are going for a darker feel, more in line with the new BSG kind of look. If Trek has shown us anything, it's that TOS was light, colorful, and "happy", for lack of a better term. Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Scotty all joked around with each other, and were genuine friends... I hope they keep that element, and don't make this a dark and moody film... that is not at all what TOS was.
I wouldnít read too much into the atmosphere of the teaser. It was only ďdarkerĒ inasmuch as it was shown to us at night. The darkness makes the shipís details harder to discern and adds a sense of mystery and portent, the expectant twilight before the dawn as it were. It also makes all the work lights and welding sparks much more visually dramatic than they would be in the daytime. It makes no sense to conclude from this that they are gearing the whole film toward a BSG aesthetic.

I absolutely hate the corridors... just hate them. That's all I'll say on that.
Iím reserving judgment until we have something better to go by than a grainy, ďWebcamĒ image of a corridor that may still be under construction or the equivalent of a Jeffries tube. Itís not what I would expect for a main crew corridor either but there are many circumstances under which I could happily accept it.

One phrase... the imagination of a child. I'll explain. As Trekkers, we have all at one point wondered with the innocence of a child, just what it would be like, if the Earth governments of today were to band together, and jointly build a starship Enterprise, with what we have. I am convinced this trailer is what such an endeavor would look like... so on that merit... I REALLY like it a whole lot.
Thatís an interesting way of looking at it and I agree wholeheartedly.
__________________
www.vektorvisual.com
Vektor is offline   Reply With Quote