At Grand Slam XVI he settled the question for us. It was built on Earth and "probably" assembled in space. Daniel Broadway's award-winning "trailer" is evidently right on target. Maybe Paramount could save money by using his trailer.
The took "Constructed at San Francisco Fleet Yards" too literally?
- Thread starter Kurgan
- Start date
Ya think?Let me get this straight: the hardcore fans are bothered to where the ship was built but not how the story would unfold? And they call themselves true Trek fans? LMAO.
Yep. That's why they're hardcore.
All canon versus not canon issues aside, I think it's been pretty clear that the intention in the Star Trek universe so far (TOS - ENT) was for all starships to be constructed in space. That's built and stuck together in space. There has never been any indication that ships were built on the surfaces of planets (the parts of a Galaxy-class seen on the Mars surface in TNG were merely there because the production team had to make buildings out of something and had some model bits left over), where as there has been a great deal to suggest that ships were built in orbit inside those huge drydock frams.
Now, for me, the issue isn't whether or not the NCC-1701 was built on Earth or in space or whatever. These things can always be explained away or ignored as an 'error'. The issue is that Abrams and co, who are supposedly fans of the franchise and respectful to continuity, have chosen to portray something that is clearly against the vastly accepted and aknowledged canon. So if they're playing it fast and loose here, what else are they going to be messing with?
*sigh*
Ya think?
Yep. That's why they're hardcore.
All canon versus not canon issues aside, I think it's been pretty clear that the intention in the Star Trek universe so far (TOS - ENT) was for all starships to be constructed in space. That's built and stuck together in space. There has never been any indication that ships were built on the surfaces of planets (the parts of a Galaxy-class seen on the Mars surface in TNG were merely there because the production team had to make buildings out of something and had some model bits left over), where as there has been a great deal to suggest that ships were built in orbit inside those huge drydock frams.
Now, for me, the issue isn't whether or not the NCC-1701 was built on Earth or in space or whatever. These things can always be explained away or ignored as an 'error'. The issue is that Abrams and co, who are supposedly fans of the franchise and respectful to continuity, have chosen to portray something that is clearly against the vastly accepted and aknowledged canon. So if they're playing it fast and loose here, what else are they going to be messing with?
This is beyond silly. As many have pointed out already, the novel "A Flag full of Stars", published (I think) in the early 80's, and set shortly before The Motion Picture, has the Enterprise-refit saucer section being overhauled on Earth, then flown into orbit for final assembly - the idea has been out there for ages now that this was how the ship was built. I remember reading this years ago.
Sure it flies in the face of some fan assumptions, but it does not violate any actual established canon. It also makes more sense to do any kind of hardware/engineering/electrical etc. work in 1g where possible, as it is about a thousand times easier than doing so without the aid of gravity. And TOS showed the Enterprise entering the atmosphere of the Earth in Tomorrow is Yesterday. All this has been pointed out already, of course, but seems to fall on really, really deaf ears..
Sure it flies in the face of some fan assumptions, but it does not violate any actual established canon. It also makes more sense to do any kind of hardware/engineering/electrical etc. work in 1g where possible, as it is about a thousand times easier than doing so without the aid of gravity. And TOS showed the Enterprise entering the atmosphere of the Earth in Tomorrow is Yesterday. All this has been pointed out already, of course, but seems to fall on really, really deaf ears..
Agreed... sigh....*sigh*Ya think?
Yep. That's why they're hardcore.
All canon versus not canon issues aside, I think it's been pretty clear that the intention in the Star Trek universe so far (TOS - ENT) was for all starships to be constructed in space. That's built and stuck together in space. There has never been any indication that ships were built on the surfaces of planets (the parts of a Galaxy-class seen on the Mars surface in TNG were merely there because the production team had to make buildings out of something and had some model bits left over), where as there has been a great deal to suggest that ships were built in orbit inside those huge drydock frams.
Now, for me, the issue isn't whether or not the NCC-1701 was built on Earth or in space or whatever. These things can always be explained away or ignored as an 'error'. The issue is that Abrams and co, who are supposedly fans of the franchise and respectful to continuity, have chosen to portray something that is clearly against the vastly accepted and aknowledged canon. So if they're playing it fast and loose here, what else are they going to be messing with?
After repeated restatements of how the original folks planned it this way, the TNG folks planned it this way, how it's been referenced on screen multiple times... it seems that "personal canon" simply can't be let go, huh?
And in the process, when you're demonstrating how much of a "fanboy" everyone else is (because it's kewl to insult every other fan but yourself, huh?) be sure to call them all "fanboys" or "hardcore nutcase fans" or whatever. Oh, yes, and be SURE to make it clear that the reason that the average "man on the street" will like, or hate, this movie is going to be based upon how Starships are built, or upon the necessity of making non-functional cosmetic-only changes to the design to more closely match whatever image that you carry around in your head for how you (being massively successful TV/movie production folks obviously!) really SHOULD have been done for it not to suck so much.
Bartender, another round of sighs, all around!
(For the record, for anyone who's not been paying attention, I've been called anti-Abrams for questioning the need for what seem to be merely cosmetic alterations to the 1701 design (which nevertheless don't appear to be remotely consistent with the original design, and would thus mean that we're looking at a "totally new Enterprise") and of being an Abrams sychophant for not throwing a fit over a SLIGHTLY USED shuttlecraft interior or what seems to me to be a very reasonable approach to construction, which also has the benefit of being what the TOS staff orginally intended. It's quite an accomplishment to be accused of both at once... I'm so proud!)
This isn't true. The accepted fan wisdom on this subject has always been derived from the primary source for discerning all things that did and didn't make it to the screen in TOS -- Roddenberry and Whitfield's The Making of Star Trek. It clearly states that the unit components were assembled in the San Francisco Navy Yards and transported to orbit for final assembly. Nothing in any other Roddenberry production ever contradicted this -- in TMP the ship was being refit, not built. In TNG the unit components were built on the surface of Mars and transported to orbit for final assembly.
Questions about Enterprise being able to enter a planet's atmosphere have been misconstrued from what TMoST tells us. "The ship is "not designed to enter the atmosphere of a planet and never lands on a planet surface" (page 171). Not "the ship can't enter an atmosphere". As has been pointed out, it was shown having entered an atmosphere in "Tomorrow is Yesterday". But, entering an atmosphere isn't by any stretch of the imagination standard operating procedure, and since the ship absolutely can't land, has adequate sensor ability to conduct a planetary study from orbit, and can transport personnel to a planet's surface for closer study, it shouldn't need to enter a planet's atmosphere.
There are several indications from Roddenberry's Trek productions that give us a clue why this is the case. For one thing, in "The Naked Time" we see that in an unpowered state, the ship would burn up and crash in an atmosphere where in space it would just float free and drift, or retain a slowly deteriorating orbit that would afford time for repairs. Undertake a close, powered orbit and there is much less margin for error.
Also, in TMP (and to some extent the aforementioned "Naked Time") it is inferred that going to warp in a star system or near a planet isn't normal. Making the warp option less viable by going even deeper into a gravity well would be a tactically dubious choice, like leaving your sails furled in a wind. And if the mass of the star or planet actually interferes with going to warp in some way, then being deep in a planet's gravity well would seem to only exacerbate the problem.
This last point is especially interesting, since we are told by the Abrams group that the exact reason for Enterprise's nacelles being "calibrated" on the surface is to align them in a gravity well. It seems to me that at least they are thinking about this stuff and coming up with some rationale for the imagery they want to provide us. I'm not sure how aligning the nacelles in exactly the place you'd never use them would be of use, but hell, maybe I'm missing something. A lot of post-Roddenberry treks shows birds-of-prey and NX-01s dramatically jumping to warp in an atmosphere, so maybe they just intend to dispense with any attachment to original intentions and make TOS fit better with the schlock. Or maybe not -- it'd probably be worthwhile to let the film speak for itself on this point.
Anyhow, none of this means that any respect for how Enterprise was originally meant to function would lead to the ship lifting off, complete, Lost in Space-style, from San Francisco, and climb on into orbit. Though there is nothing in the technology I described above that would prevent it. If it is supported on the surface, it isn't "landed". Such a portrayal would definitely go against the clear intent of Roddenberry, et al, that Enterprise was an extension of current space technology which, like the International Space Station, is built piece by piece on the surface and trucked into orbit to be assembled. An extension not of the old style "lifting off in a rocket" that was SOP in the 1960s, but tech that was from the perspective of that time futuristic, and to us is current practice.
In short, none of this is as cut and dried as anyone is saying. There were clear intentions, depicted a bit more vaguely onscreen, and contradicted all to hell by post-Roddenberry trek. So, pick your trek and have fun, but don't say you're respecting Roddenberry unless, of course, you actually are.
Of course, that's not what they are saying -- they say they are respecting canon (be damned).
That's why I would hope the major components would be depicted as being built in the Navy Yards in San Francisco, the nacelles calibrated there, and the parts disassembled for final fitting and finishing in orbit. I'd furthermore hope that if these guys were really, really up on their Roddenberry, they'd know that he intended this process to happen... underground, where all industrial activity would take place in the utopian, naturalistic San Francisco peninsula of the 23rd century.
But that may just be hoping for too damned much.
Agreed... sigh....
After repeated restatements of how the original folks planned it this way, the TNG folks planned it this way, how it's been referenced on screen multiple times... it seems that "personal canon" simply can't be let go, huh?
And in the process, when you're demonstrating how much of a "fanboy" everyone else is (because it's kewl to insult every other fan but yourself, huh?) be sure to call them all "fanboys" or "hardcore nutcase fans" or whatever. Oh, yes, and be SURE to make it clear that the reason that the average "man on the street" will like, or hate, this movie is going to be based upon how Starships are built, or upon the necessity of making non-functional cosmetic-only changes to the design to more closely match whatever image that you carry around in your head for how you (being massively successful TV/movie production folks obviously!) really SHOULD have been done for it not to suck so much.
Bartender, another round of sighs, all around!
(For the record, for anyone who's not been paying attention, I've been called anti-Abrams for questioning the need for what seem to be merely cosmetic alterations to the 1701 design (which nevertheless don't appear to be remotely consistent with the original design, and would thus mean that we're looking at a "totally new Enterprise") and of being an Abrams sychophant for not throwing a fit over a SLIGHTLY USED shuttlecraft interior or what seems to me to be a very reasonable approach to construction, which also has the benefit of being what the TOS staff orginally intended. It's quite an accomplishment to be accused of both at once... I'm so proud!)
What? I didn't say anything about being or not being a 'fanboy' myself.
And I also never said I cared where the Enterprise was built. I really don't. And I also never said that Abrams and co were violating any canon. I said that they were going against what was clearly the established intention of past production teams.
And I never said anything about 'personal canon'. To be honest, I've never really given the construction of starships in Trek that much thought. I'd always assumed it was in space, as that's what was inferred on screen. And even if I had thought otherwise, that's nothing to do with Abrams' team. It's not their job to pander to the fans. They have to make a good movie. But since they've stated several time that they are not messing around with established facts, I just find it odd that they should decide to go against what has been heavily inferred already in 700+ episodes and films.
It may have been inferred (since that's a very subjective and arguable term), but it was never "heavily inferred," and certainly not in 700+ episodes and films. Only a few episodes ever addressed construction or repair, and none directly addressed the construction of NCC 1701.
(Keep in mind that I don't give a shit where they built it.)
Well, obviously it wasn't addressed in 700-odd episodes. But if you look at all of the examples of ships being built and launched, they are all in orbital drydocks. TMP, 'Booby Trap', 'Redemption', the Utopia Planitia episodes in VOY, the construction of the MU Defiant, the launch of the NX-01...all in space. There has been nothing anywhere to suggest being built on the ground. Yes, there has been nothing to say the opposite either, but nothing for.
I quite like the idea of it being built on the ground. It's kind of cool. A bit less sci-fi-ish, but cool nontheless. I just find it strange that Abrams and co would pull it out of the air instead of going with what has already been seen as the norm for Trek.
So, if it hasn't been established on way or the other, then why is there a problem?
Well, it looks like Abrams is attempting to ground Star Trek in reality, both figuratively and literally.
Well, from a purely scientific standpoint.... I just want the damn thing built and flying!!!!
And... and... lots kool aliens and fights and phasers!
Surprised no one has endlessly "debated" what phasers will look like... because I heard from a friend of a friend of the sister of the guy who walks Abrams dog that he's changing what the phasers look like.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Defiant (NCC-1764) dedication plaque state she was constructed on Luna? That large facility we see depicted unfortunately only on the cover of one of the Calenders.
Wouldn't that point to most of the Constitution Class ships being built on the ground at Starfleet installations, several being built at different locations and launched into each locations orbital yards for the final assembly?
Heck it could explain Starbase 11 having so many ships being worked on but apparently not seen in orbit, some could have set down for major repairs and overhauls similar to how Voyager did in "Nightingale" only with much less ease.
Personally I think when the Enterprise components reach orbit and are assembled, that a final layer of resin/ceramic material will be applied over the hull giving her the more original white eggshell look.
Wouldn't that point to most of the Constitution Class ships being built on the ground at Starfleet installations, several being built at different locations and launched into each locations orbital yards for the final assembly?
Heck it could explain Starbase 11 having so many ships being worked on but apparently not seen in orbit, some could have set down for major repairs and overhauls similar to how Voyager did in "Nightingale" only with much less ease.
Personally I think when the Enterprise components reach orbit and are assembled, that a final layer of resin/ceramic material will be applied over the hull giving her the more original white eggshell look.
As interesting as all this talk of Roddenberry's weed-induced technical manuals is, the bottom line is that this whole debate is insane. Does it really matter? Does canon have anything to do with this, aside from the plaque backing up Abram's choice? Have we all become so old and inflexible that we have outlived our usefullness? Or did that happen about a decade ago?
Welcome to your better life.
Welcome to your better life.
While I agree with much of what you wrote, here I can't. Why so many since 1979 have latched onto that one line of Kirk's in TMP is beyond me. In practically every episode of the series, the Enterprise leaves orbit at warp speed, usually Wf1 or 2 to be certain so not that fast, but in the gravity well of a star and in or near that of a Class-M planet. Being too deep inside a particularly strong (black hole) or unstable (Psi 2000) gravity well may be tricky, but normally it's not a prohibitive factor in warp speed operations.