RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,670
Posts: 5,429,442
Members: 24,822
Currently online: 461
Newest member: The Great Duck


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 6 2008, 04:11 PM   #511
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

If I remember the story right, they were penciled in under MJ's protest sometime during season one, because Roddenberry was wanting some of the 'tech' mentioned in the series to be more reflected on the model.

But, yes, FJ didn't invent the grid lines, they were there in the official literature as the show was produced.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 04:57 PM   #512
Holytomato
Fleet Captain
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Someone disavowing the Matt Jefferies', Franz Joseph's, Greg Jein's, ENT's, The Smith's refurbish, and TOS'R models because of the deflector shield grid!?

Otherwise known as the "No lines on the hull! It must look the way it did on screen!" position.

Its been a long time.

I had forgotten.
Holytomato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 05:50 PM   #513
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

therealfoxbat said:
The stress of the assembled ship flying from the ground to orbit is no big thing.

Agreed.

The big thing is the stress on the partially assembled framework. Something shaped like the Enterprise would collapse under its own weight during construction without some really serious bracing and scaffolding, which would probably account for three-fourths of the resources devoted to building it.

What would logically happen is something akin to what real-world naval shipyards do. They construct a pre-fabricated section of a ship (called a superlift) which is then moved by a massive crane from the construction yard to the drydock and installed on the ship assembly. In a similar manner, a pre-fabricated section of the Enterprise (say, a pizza-slice of the saucer hull) would be constructed on the ground and then lifted up to orbit to be installed on the ship assembly. Come to think of it, that's pretty much how the International Space Station is being built right now...
You're largely correct in your thinking, I think. I don't believe (and this trailer doesn't SHOW) that the Enterprise was ASSEMBLED on the ground. We see some components, but it seems fairly evident (or at least, it seems evident to ME) that these components aren't attached to each other in their "final positions." In par4ticular, I reference what appears to be the primary hull dorsal... or perhaps one of the nacelle pylons?... being constructed at a distance, and orientation which is completely "wrong" compared to where it SHOULD be, relative to the saucer we can see in that same scene.

I've also become convinced that what I originally believed was the backside of a nacelle is much more likely the top of the secondary hull. I assumed it was a nacelle because I could see no evidence of a dorsal or of a saucer... but the scale, and the visible detailing, is nearly "right" for the secondary hull but totally "wrong" (IMHO) for a nacelle, if you accept that the dorsal hasn't been attached and it's sitting somewhere else other than "right under" the primary hull.

They're building it in chunks, then lifting those chunks into space for final assembly, system-integration, etc.

As for painting the hull... well... the obvious argument is that, since this doesn't really look like the original Enterprise, they needed to do that in order to make sure that the audience would "get it."

However, if, say, the outer surface of the hull is composite... and some laminated construction at that... they may well have ceramic materials and so forth laminated on top of hull metal on those plates. If so, it might well be that the non-metallic portions of the hull plating are best applied in smaller areas. I mean, if we were really talking about just putting paint on top of bare metal, you'd probably be right. But think about the "printing" on the buttons on your cell phone keypad, where there are actually two colors of plastic, one molded right around the other one. Maybe THAT's what they're doing.

I don't have a big problem with what I'm seeing here, except that it's not the original (and thus I'll never be able to "suspend my disbelief" that this is the Enterprise... "I KNOW the Enterprise, I've grown up with the Enterprise, and sir, YOU ARE NO ENTERPRISE!" )
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 06:01 PM   #514
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Ed Mirecki over-emphasized the existing hull lines and "weathering" on the Enterprise in his work for the Smithsonian - that was his only substantial error on the thing. Considering the previous dreadful refurbishments (the model had never been displayed in original screen condition at NASM), the decrepit condition of the model at that time and the Smithsonian's unwillingness to pay what they'd been told by experts that a full museum-quality restoration would cost, Ed deserves fannish appreciation rather than the snippy censure he so often receives.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 06:09 PM   #515
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Santaman said:
therealfoxbat said:
The big thing is the stress on the partially assembled framework. Something shaped like the Enterprise would collapse under its own weight *snip snip*
Why assume this? they're NOT building it out of steel or out of any other material we can use/think off today.
Actually, think about HOUSE CONSTRUCTION as a great example of why this form of construction is not only plausible and reasonable, but actually PREFERABLE (and also why you would prefer, as in TOS, to have shapes that have similar cross-sections all the way around, rather than with TNG-and-later which have shapes that don't share the same cross-section at any point around their rotation!).

Let's say you were going to build a Constitution-class primary hull. You'd build a series of flat frame sections (just like they do with house construction) and arrange them radially around a central "hub" structure. Theses flat "pie-wedge-cut" sections would be VERY STRONG initially. You'd then build up interconnections between these wedges... building "floor/ceiling" framing. And you'd have a VERY STRONG structure up-front, long before the first plating or internal structure was put into place.

That's how REAL construction is done today... for ships, for aircraft, and for houses. The "girder at a time" construction used in SKYSCRAPERS is really the exception, not the rule, yet that's the form of "steel construction" that most people think of when they think of that.

For the secondary hull... again, you'd do a series of flat "ring" shapes, string them up in the right sequence, then build the ceiling/floor structure to connect them together.

For the dorsal and pylons... well, you can figure THAT part out I'm sure.

Once the basic structural framework is in place, you'd start filling it in, and once it was largely filled in, you'd put on the outer skin.

It makes perfect sense to have the thing largely constructed that way (in an environment where the workers can operate without spacesuits) prior to lifting it into space.

I've always sort of assumed that surface-based construction was a practical necessity (ie, it was MUCH easier to do it this way and lift the components than to build them all in the vacuum of space!) until post-TOS.

Why Post-TOS? Well... you see the answer to this in Star Trek III. SPACEDOCK... or "Starbase One." It has a big interior space which is clearly zero-G, but which also (demonstrated clearly by the fact that you have spotlights inside which have VISIBLE BEAMS) has an internal atmosphere.

If you had something like Spacedock, you would have the best of both worlds... the ability to build in a "shirtsleeves" environment but in zero-gravity. And any maintenance that required a lot of outside-of-the-ship maintenance (say, for instance, that you'd been in a firefight without shields and the hull of your ship had been torn up), you'd dock in there because that's where they could most easily do the exterior work that would put your ship's hull RIGHT again.

It all really makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Now, as for the supposed DISADVANTAGES of building on the ground... other than a humorous post a while back about finding dead leaves and squirrel droppings in the lower portions of the secondary hull, there really aren't any. They have antigravity, so lifting into orbit is TRIVIAL. (That can also be applied to your concerns about the structure "collapsing" can't it?). The ONLY issue that might really apply would be if you were concerned about the negative effects of atmosphere on the structural framework... steel components in orbit wouldn't rust, and there might be a little rust if you did the work right next to the San Francisco Bay.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 06:16 PM   #516
Arlo
Fleet Captain
 
Arlo's Avatar
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

While as a nacelle it's certainly big, that shot looks way too *small* to me to be the secondary hull. I'm still going with nacelle. Everything matches up to what we've seen so far, down to the position and shape of the intercooler winglets (the angle of which looks too shallow to be nacelles struts).
__________________
"Even with all its blemishes, Trek XI still teabags the bloated corpses that were Insurrection and Nemesis and managed to make Trek fun again." - Sheep
Arlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 06:35 PM   #517
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

therealfoxbat said:
The other thing I don't understand is the registry number. Shouldn't the paint job be the LAST thing they do...?
  • -followed by-
Cary L. Brown said:
As for painting the hull... well... the obvious argument is that, since this doesn't really look like the original Enterprise, they needed to do that in order to make sure that the audience would "get it."
They don't wait until ships are finished now, so why would it change over the next few hundred years?

Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 07:49 PM   #518
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Shaw said:
therealfoxbat said:
The other thing I don't understand is the registry number. Shouldn't the paint job be the LAST thing they do...?
  • -followed by-
Cary L. Brown said:
As for painting the hull... well... the obvious argument is that, since this doesn't really look like the original Enterprise, they needed to do that in order to make sure that the audience would "get it."
They don't wait until ships are finished now, so why would it change over the next few hundred years?


Oh, god!
You do know that this will trigger another screen-page(s) long post, don't you?

ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 08:11 PM   #519
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Since they also had to install all those lights for the number, in that case it only makes sense for the number to be painted on at the same time.

The big question is was the number on the flight deck painted on at this time?
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 08:49 PM   #520
Vektor
Rear Admiral
 
Vektor's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

On the subject of something like the Enterprise being able to support itself during construction in Earth-normal gravity, did anyone else notice that the saucer section appears to be substantially unsupported by scaffolding or other structures? I mean, yeah, there are a few here and there, but particularly in the shots with the precariously perched welder in the foreground and the saucer in the background, it looks like the thing is just floating there with very little to hold it up. You can see a lot of columns and scaffolding surrounding the saucer, but if you scrub the video back and forth, itís obvious that very little of it is attached.

I donít really have any problem with the ship being built on Earth, but I would have expected it to be virtually encased in scaffolding and support structures, especially underneath. Unless they already have the structural integrity fields online, the shipís framework ainít build out of steel. Carbon nanofiber, maybe, or something more Trekkian like duranium or rhodinium.
__________________
www.vektorvisual.com
Vektor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 09:35 PM   #521
Arlo
Fleet Captain
 
Arlo's Avatar
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

^ I know we're all just engaged in fun speculation, but I really have to think most everything in that teaser is a one-off for the "under construction" metaphor.

I would say we don't see a massive support framework simply because it would obfuscate what little they're already trying to show us.
__________________
"Even with all its blemishes, Trek XI still teabags the bloated corpses that were Insurrection and Nemesis and managed to make Trek fun again." - Sheep
Arlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 09:52 PM   #522
therealfoxbat
Commander
 
therealfoxbat's Avatar
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Santaman said:
therealfoxbat said:
The big thing is the stress on the partially assembled framework. Something shaped like the Enterprise would collapse under its own weight *snip snip*
Why assume this? they're NOT building it out of steel or out of any other material we can use/think off today.
You left out the part of my quote about bracing and scaffolding...

I don't believe the futuristic material would matter much. Any half-built structure that's shaped like a very narrow letter T would be inherently unstable without extensive bracing, which doesn't seem to appear in the preview. I admit that building the ship on the ground is possible, but I believe the cost and hassle of doing it that way (compared to assembling the prefab units in orbit) would be prohibitive.


aridas sofia said:
The lines were there on the 11 foot model, drawn in pencil on the painted surface. They were purposely drawn very faintly, and are only visible in certain shots (like the two-shot with the Constellation in "The Doomsday machine").
Forbin said:
Incorrect. The radial and concentric panel lines were on the original model from the very beginning. They were pencilled on lightly so as to be realistically inconspicuous. They're visible in most shots that show a closeup of the top of the saucer section. Franz Joseph didn't event them. The AMT model exaggerated them severely however.

And the AMT model was released during the run of Star Trek in the 1960s, while the Franz Joseph tech manual was released in 1975, so I kinda doubt the model was based on the TM, ya know?
OOPS... My bad...


Cary L. Brown said:
You're largely correct in your thinking, I think. I don't believe (and this trailer doesn't SHOW) that the Enterprise was ASSEMBLED on the ground. We see some components, but it seems fairly evident (or at least, it seems evident to ME) that these components aren't attached to each other in their "final positions." In par4ticular, I reference what appears to be the primary hull dorsal... or perhaps one of the nacelle pylons?... being constructed at a distance, and orientation which is completely "wrong" compared to where it SHOULD be, relative to the saucer we can see in that same scene.

I've also become convinced that what I originally believed was the backside of a nacelle is much more likely the top of the secondary hull. I assumed it was a nacelle because I could see no evidence of a dorsal or of a saucer... but the scale, and the visible detailing, is nearly "right" for the secondary hull but totally "wrong" (IMHO) for a nacelle, if you accept that the dorsal hasn't been attached and it's sitting somewhere else other than "right under" the primary hull.

They're building it in chunks, then lifting those chunks into space for final assembly, system-integration, etc.

As for painting the hull... well... the obvious argument is that, since this doesn't really look like the original Enterprise, they needed to do that in order to make sure that the audience would "get it."

However, if, say, the outer surface of the hull is composite... and some laminated construction at that... they may well have ceramic materials and so forth laminated on top of hull metal on those plates. If so, it might well be that the non-metallic portions of the hull plating are best applied in smaller areas. I mean, if we were really talking about just putting paint on top of bare metal, you'd probably be right. But think about the "printing" on the buttons on your cell phone keypad, where there are actually two colors of plastic, one molded right around the other one. Maybe THAT's what they're doing.

I don't have a big problem with what I'm seeing here, except that it's not the original (and thus I'll never be able to "suspend my disbelief" that this is the Enterprise... "I KNOW the Enterprise, I've grown up with the Enterprise, and sir, YOU ARE NO ENTERPRISE!" )
I believe that's a nacelle and not the secondary hull, because there are two of them in the scene, both at just about the proper places for the nacelles to be.

You may be correct about the lettering being integrated into the hull plating. I was probably thinking about Scotty's Guide To The Enterprise, where they talk about the paint job actually being a paint job.
__________________
TASTE MY SQUIRRELLY WRATH!!!

I really DO have a squirrelly wrath, you know...
therealfoxbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 10:00 PM   #523
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Captain Robert April said:
Since they also had to install all those lights for the number, in that case it only makes sense for the number to be painted on at the same time.

The big question is was the number on the flight deck painted on at this time?
At the time of those images... no. Those numbers are painted over the flight deck surfacing and are periodically repainted along with the rest of the flight deck markings because they become unreadable after as little as a single deployment.

A better question is if the name had been applied to the stern of the ship at that time... and as I recall, yes. The name is actually raised lettering on the stern, so that would have been applied during the construction of that section before assembly.

Anyone curious about how carriers are put together can take a look at this link which has a lot of images of the USS George H W Bush under construction.
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2008, 10:39 PM   #524
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

therealfoxbat said:
I believe that's a nacelle and not the secondary hull, because there are two of them in the scene, both at just about the proper places for the nacelles to be.
I think you're thinking of a different shot.

This is the shot I'm referring to (click to see full-sized).


I believe that's the back of the secondary hull, not the nacelle... as I was originally thinking. As such, the size is MUCH closer to what it ought to be.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7 2008, 12:38 AM   #525
therealfoxbat
Commander
 
therealfoxbat's Avatar
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

You're right. I'm thinking of the shot that TheSeeker posted in Page 2 of this thread on January 18.
__________________
TASTE MY SQUIRRELLY WRATH!!!

I really DO have a squirrelly wrath, you know...
therealfoxbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.