• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

ST XI Enterprise conjecture

judexavier, that fighter is pretty incredible. Definitely one of the best Trek themed fighters I've seen.

When I "fill in the gaps" in my head about how big the UFP and Starfleet are I like to imagine large starfighters supporting some capital ship groups. I think this definitely fits that bill.

As for its shape, it's possible that the main weapons system requires a flatten disc shape for its particle acceleration components or something along those lines...
 
Hey Jude!
Just found this over at Scifi-Meshes, and thought you might like an ego-stroke.

heyjudeyt7.jpg

By baxart at 2008-05-16
 
Indeed, you and Gabe both oughta be pretty pleased with yourselves. Maybe you guys should be on Paramount's payroll for providing a distraction of sorts. ;)
 
Warped9 said:
One of the things I've always found laughable about some Trek fans is how quickly they latch onto the idea of drastic refits for starships within a framework of only a few years.

How often has the U.S.S. Enterprise CVAN-65 been refit since her launch in the early '60s and how drastically has she changed in form. And by that I mean how obvious are the changes externally?

The mere idea that the thing seen in the Trek XI trailer is the TOS E's original form that is then changed drastically to "The Cage" era version only a few short years later and then refit again nearly twenty years later strikes me as rather implausible. The moderate changes from "The Cage" to WNMHGB to series is reasonable and then the drastic refit in TMP.

But the drastic differences seen in the Trek XI trailer to the Pike era version are laughable and have no apparent rationale. That is for those who insist the film is in the same continuity as TOS.

However, it makes perfect sense if it's a reboot because then the design is drastically different because...well just because they can.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly fine to base ones' ideas of how frequently naval vessel refits should happen based on Earth naval history.

It's also perfectly fine not to. Can we agree on that?
 
Do you guys know this or not, is E being built on the ground in XI, this based on that composite shot that Abrams saw on the net?

I mean it's either that, or E is in a completely closed station in space, given that the construction crew is not in spacesuits.

If so, it will be interesting to see how the heck you get E into space once built on the ground...

deg
 
ancient said:
Presumably you fire up the engines and take off.
Click to expand...

Well, considering that the two impulse engines are the only thrusters E has (aside from various smaller attitude adjusters), and the main impulse engines are unilateral in direction, and are not even designed as atmo escape thrusters, I can't see how that would work.

As to the warp nacelles, firing up a warp field on a planet surface, I don't think that would be a very good idea any way you slice it. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. I just hope it doesn't jump the shark in concept, and judging from the glimpse of the new "bloated" E (looks like they pretty much destroyed Matt's sleekness-of-beauty that I love so much), quite frankly, I'm kinda worried for the first time about Trek.

NCC-1701 said:
Three words: A giant slingshot. ;)
Click to expand...

LOL, let's hope they don't jump the shark that much, but it has a better chance than just firing up the engines IMO, for reasons stated. :)

deg
 
Well, the serious answer is that they won't have to lift the NCC-1701 at all. They are just moving the earth away from her. That has been confirmed by Abrams and company. That makes it credible.
 
NCC-1701 said:
Well, the serious answer is that they won't have to lift the NCC-1701 at all. They are just moving the earth away from her. That has been confirmed by Abrams and company. That makes it credible.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh..., < slaps forehead > of course! How could I miss that? D'oh. Thanks, I feel much better now. Maybe they can get Fonzie to jump E and the Earth too at launch time. That would make it purrrfect. :)

deg
 
The Enterprise has been established to be able to fly in low atmosphere on screen. Obviously it must have some thrusters which allow it to do so. There's no issue.
 
The only time the Enterprise flew low in the atmosphere (low in this case being somewhere around 80,000 feet), it most definitely was not on purpose, and the primary objective at the time was to get the hell OUT of the atmosphere and back into a proper orbit.
 
ancient said:
The Enterprise has been established to be able to fly in low atmosphere on screen. Obviously it must have some thrusters which allow it to do so. There's no issue.
Click to expand...

Cruising leisurely (or actually in a decaying orbit if I recall correctly) across the sky as in Tomorrow is Yesterday in the lateral direction that her impulse engines would send her is not the same means as lifting her up into a mounted surface-to-air trajectory.

Now if they had an angled launch ramp (to account for the mounted direction of her impulse engines, and thus direction of thrust), maybe, but again, to my own perhaps limited knowledge, the impulse engines are not designed to deliver that type of atmo planetary gravity breaking thrust from a static start.

Again, it will be interesting to see what they come up with. I just hope that it takes some consideration into established concepts. Yet given that it's being built on the ground, that may be out.

Change is good IMO though. The one constant in the universe eh. Yet, creatively, as long as it is thought out change, it's cool by me. But if it's seems contrived and ends up just to be another jumping the shark for the sake of presenting "new" change for the sake of "new" change itself, that's below sub-par IMO. Just my thoughts. :)

Oh my, my inner Trek Geek is comin' out big time. I Grok Spock eh. :)

deg
 
Last edited:
deg3D said:
Cruising leisurely (or actually in a decaying orbit if I recall correctly) across the sky as in Tomorrow is Yesterday in the lateral direction that her impulse engines would send her is not the same means as lifting her up into a mounted surface-to-air trajectory.
Click to expand...
They were very close to an airforce jet. That isn't orbit. If they could make it from there into orbit running only on reserve power, they can make it from the ground into orbit on full power.

Now if they had an angled launch ramp (to account for the mounted direction of her impulse engines, and thus direction of thrust), maybe, but again, to my own perhaps limited knowledge, the impulse engines are not designed to deliver that type of atmo planetary gravity breaking thrust from a static start.
Click to expand...
This is entirely an assumption on your part, and is not supported by anything we've ever seen on screen. Also, you seem to be assuming that they'd use the impulse engines, but that is clearly overkill for take-off. They'd use the thrusters.

Again, it will be interesting to see what they come up with. I just hope that it takes some consideration into established concepts.
Click to expand...

There are no established concepts addressing this, except for ones which support that the ship can operate just fine in atmosphere even without main power. Abrams is free in this regard to say anything he wants without contradicting anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top