The E-D was built on the ground, don't see why The 1701 couldn't

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^I'm sure that explanation by Orci can be shot full of holes, but quite frankly it makes as much sense as most other Star Trek pseudo-scientific explanations we have endured over the past 42 years.

...and like he said when asked where did that explanation come from: He said [essentially/paraphrasing] "I just made it up -- I'm allowed to do that."

 

[John Picard]

It wasn't built in space. It was born there.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

I presume that Orci's use of the phrase "exact gravity" indicates that the warp engines are going to be "balanced" while floating on barges in San Francisco Bay? After all, the gravitational field of Earth is is a remarkably complex entity in that two points on the surface only several meters apart can have (slightly) different geopotentials due to mass inhomogeneities within the planet's core, mantle and crust, to say nothing of lunisolar effects.

TGT

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^Maybe Orci didn't (and shouldn't) care about that.

 

[M'Sharak]

^
^^I'm sure that explanation by Orci can be shot full of holes, but quite frankly it makes as much sense as most other Star Trek pseudo-scientific explanations we have endured over the past 42 years.

...and like he said when asked where did that explanation come from: He said [essentially/paraphrasing] "I just made it up -- I'm allowed to do that."

Yeah, it's sort of what writers do. If something hasn't been explicitly nailed down somewhere else already and the story calls for it to be nailed down here, the writer is allowed (within reasonable limits) to Make Shit Up.

 

[Eric Cheung]

^ Exactly. If writers didn't do that, then this movie would fail on one supreme level: it would fail to surprise us. For writers it's a balancing act to give us what we want but surprise us; to give us something that makes sense but that didn't occur to us. To that end, they must not listen to the fans for everything. The fans may know what they want but not what they need for the movie to be good.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I still think that even though Orci gave us this detailed explanation, that doesn't necessarily mean that the construction of the Enterprise will be part of this film.

We were always given "off-screen" explanations for by Roddenberry and Justman and Okuda of some of the thought process behind the technology...but many of these things were never seen on-screen.

For example Roddenberry said that the shipyards were in geosynchronous orbit. Well, that's fine to say, but nothing on-screen ever showed the shipyards. Now Orci gives some explanation about building on the ground. Well, that's fine -- but it doesn't necessarily mean we're going to see it on-screen.

Plus, Orci said that a long time ago...even if they was a scene showing this, it could have been edited out of the film for various reasons -- time constraints, not necessary to the story, etc. -- and ended up on the cutting room floor.

 

[M'Sharak]

I still think that even though Orci gave us this detailed explanation, that doesn't necessarily mean that the construction of the Enterprise will be part of this film.

You're right about this and the rest, and honestly, I'm not sure that most or all of that wasn't just Orci saying, in a roundabout way, "I'm not going to tell you -- just wait and see the movie -- but hey, as long as we're sitting here talking about stuff, let's have a little fun with this."

 

[A Clockwork Lim]

Why would they construct it on the ground then go through the hassle of trying to get it into orbit rather than just doing most if not all of it in micro-gravity to begin with? It's not like artificial gravity, replicators, or simulated environments are SOTA technology in the Trek universe. Especially in Picard's time.

To be absolutely honest, I'm not sure why they don't just build SuperReplicators and spew out starships by the shitload.

 

[Eric Cheung]

Replicators make food taste sterile and mediocre. I'm sure starships would be equally imperfect. Also, the TNG Technical Manual addressed this by saying that if you could replicate starships, in a way you wouldn't need to. If humans had that kind of power, would we, as a turn of the millenium audience really be able to relate to them? It's the same reason that they shouldn't really set a show any further than the 24th century. Life already seemed to be pretty easy from a technology standpoint by DS9 and VOY.

And all the junk that's needed to make the ship would have to get to the shipyards eventually anyway. Do you build most of it on the ground and then launch it in orbit to finish it or do you haul all the materials from Earth or somewhere equally hard to the shipyards to do it. There are pros and cons for each. Given what we know about building FTL starships that crew hundreds (which is basically nil), I'm not convinced that one way is better than another.

 

[ancient]

Considering how easily SF ships move through atmosphere, there's no reason NOT to build it on the ground. The ship in the trailer seems to be on some sort of massive support pier. Building stuff in space is all theoretical at this point; building stuff on the ground is the only game in town in real-world land. And when I say 'building stuff' I don't mean a 10 lb satellite, I mean a 250,000 ton airtight superstructure. It just seems safe to have something like that sitting on solid ground while you're trying to assemble it.

To be absolutely honest, I'm not sure why they don't just build SuperReplicators and spew out starships by the shitload.

Several possible reasons:
-It probably takes less energy to just build it.
-There are a lot of substances in the Trekkie universe that can't be replicated - at least not easily. Like Dilithium.
-Considering how much Trek computers screw up, custom made is better. Then again, it always is anyway.

Anyway, this is TOS era, so replicators are a bit off-topic.

 

[MisterPL]

Maybe it was built on a filthy asteroid.

There was a sign next to it that read "Caution: Earth Dirt."

("Asteroid dirt." )

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Maybe it was built on a filthy asteroid.

There was a sign next to it that read "Caution: Earth Dirt."

("Asteroid dirt." )

From the inaugural log of Captain Robert April: Ooooooh, Lady E, you're a dirty girl, aren't you? You need a spanking and a bath... a tongue bath, mrooooow!

(And we thought Kirk had an unhealthy fixation on the old girl.)

 

[Rick Sternbach]

Perhaps Rick Sternbach and/or Mike Okuda could drop by and tell us what their intentions were concerning the design of Utopia Planitia's surface complex?

Systems integration simulator.

Well, that's the short answer. The hardware seen on the surface could be the real vessel parts, which were probably only 20% filled with "stuff" and then lifted into orbit for final assembly. If not, then they are flight-quality hardware used as a functioning lab to make sure everything works as designed.

Rick

 

[trevanian]

Danke schon, mein herr.

 

[trevanian]

^
^^I'm sure that explanation by Orci can be shot full of holes, "

Doesn't need to be shot, it is already full of holes.

 

[ST-One]

Danke schon, mein herr.

No one, outside of American films, uses that phrase 'mein Herr'.

 

[Trajet]

It makes perfect sense for the ship's parts to be manufactured planetside, and then launched into orbit for final assembly. After all, isn't that what we're doing with the ISS?

Manufacturing the entire vessel in orbit would be a logistical nightmare, involving more spacewalks than anyone could reasonably sanction, even in the 23rd Century. Manufacturing the ship in sections on Earth and then boosting the sections into orbit for final assembly, pressurisation and fitting out is far more logical than attempting to build the entire thing up there.

I really don't understand why this plausible, realistic method of starship construction is causing so much consternation among Star Trek fans - it's set in the 23rd century, not the 233rd century! I'm sure all the fanboys will counter with: "But we never saw the NX-01/Enterprise refit/Enterprise-D/Voyager being built on a planet!" and my answer to that is no we didn't, but that's only cos the first time we saw any of those ships, it had either already been launched or was about to be launched from drydock, and would likely have been in space for months by that point!

 

[John Picard]

It makes perfect sense for the ship's parts to be manufactured planetside, and then launched into orbit for final assembly. After all, isn't that what we're doing with the ISS?

Manufacturing the entire vessel in orbit would be a logistical nightmare, involving more spacewalks than anyone could reasonably sanction, even in the 23rd Century. Manufacturing the ship in sections on Earth and then boosting the sections into orbit for final assembly, pressurisation and fitting out is far more logical than attempting to build the entire thing up there.

I really don't understand why this plausible, realistic method of starship construction is causing so much consternation among Star Trek fans - it's set in the 23rd century, not the 233rd century! I'm sure all the fanboys will counter with: "But we never saw the NX-01/Enterprise refit/Enterprise-D/Voyager being built on a planet!" and my answer to that is no we didn't, but that's only cos the first time we saw any of those ships, it had either already been launched or was about to be launched from drydock, and would likely have been in space for months by that point!

The US Navy used to build ships from the keel to the bridge all in one fell swoop in the drydock (especially aircraft carriers). The Northrop-Grumman shipyard in Newport News, Virginia, developed the Superlift technique, where parts of the ship are built indoors and then lifted via a giant gantry and hauled to the drydock facility and attached to the ship. This greatly reduced construction time of a carrier to under three years, whereas before it was over 5 years. The Superlift can haul upwards of 900 tons.

Therefore, your description of modules built and then launched for later attachement is perfectly feasible.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

It makes perfect sense for the ship's parts to be manufactured planetside, and then launched into orbit for final assembly.

Which is more or less precisely how Gene Roddenberry described the NCC-1701's construction sequence in The Making of Star Trek and later referenced in The Counter-Clock Incident. On the other hand, ST:XI's teaser trailer - along with Orci's comments upthread - strongly suggest that this approach has been jettisoned by a couple of typists who appear to have been overly impressed and inspired by the Star Wars prequels (in particular the final scenes of AoTC).

TGT