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

[ancient]

I'm not sure "TOS:Tomorrow Is Yesterday" is the best ep for proving the 1701 had no anti-grav systems.

Right, and I don't think we can rely on the old "they never mentioned it-therefor it does not exist" argument. Personally, I'm hoping to see some new and awesome stuff in this movie, not a technical journal of TOS technobabble.

In any case, they HAVE artificial gravity. anti-gravity is probably the same thing turned upside-down with the wires crossed. (How's that for scientific predictions?)

Star Trek's canon is overwhelmngly dictated by the artistic choices of two science- and science fiction-illiterates who had an open contempt for TOS.

+1...raised to the tenth power!

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Nice. You zero in on that but ignore Jesco Von Puttankammer, tons of conceptual material, Rick Sternbach, et al. Whatever.

 

[ancient]

Relax, Strudel. Just poking.

 

[MisterPL]

Considering that we never saw or heard about even a single Tsiolkovsky Tower functioning on 23rd century Earth, I imagine those structures which may have been built during the 21st/22nd centuries would have been gradually dismantled with the maturation of transporter technology.

Like Spock's half-brother, just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it wasn't there all along.

But if your contention is that the ship was built on Earth and beamed into orbit, well, I suppose that works, too.

 

[trevanian]

But if your contention is that the ship was built on Earth and beamed into orbit, well, I suppose that works, too.

I'd like to nominate that post to be beamed into orbit, widest possible dispersal.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

But if your contention is that the ship was built on Earth and beamed into orbit, well, I suppose that works, too.

"The unit components were built at the Star Fleet Division of what is still called the San Francisco Navy Yards, and the vessel was assembled in space. The Enterprise is not designed to enter the atmosphere of a planet and never lands on a planet surface." - The Making of Star Trek by Stephen E. Whitfield & Gene Roddenberry

ST:TMP's production illustrator Andrew Probert designed - with presumably the above in mind - his Space Office Complex (which was perhaps too a certain extent inspired by the L5 movement's Construction Shack?) on the perfectly reasonable assumption that spacecraft components would be beamed there from Earth and potentially other orbital facilities for assembly and dispatch to the drydocks via Workbee, while also possessing the capability to fabricate hardware "in-house" when necessary. When one contemplates the possibilities of microgravity materials processing to create "supermaterials" for countless scientific, engineering and biotechnological applications, it was in retrospect somewhat shortsighted for Gene Roddenberry to have had any piece of the NCC-1701 manufactured on Earth itself. I am personally inclined to rationalize it away by proclaiming that the Enterprise was one of the last starships which had its "unit components" fabricated on the surface, as Starfleet was by that point well into transitioning all of its heavy industry into orbit.

TGT

 

[Sector 7]

It was clearly a mistake for the U.S. Government to organize its successful Moon missions without consulting sf fans about the most reasonable approach. Just because NASA's way worked proves nothing.

I find it thoroughly amusing that there are so many experts on 23rd century construction techniques here. The only thing funnier is that some of you are actually getting indignant about your pet 23rd century construction theories.

Dammit, Jim! I'm a Star Trek writer not a rocket scientist!

Star Trek has it wrong, the great wars before TOS weren't over Eugenics, survival or anything else we think. The great wars that nearly destroy Earth will be started by Fanboys who fight over theoretical differences of minutiae from a TV show.

 

[trevanian]

It was clearly a mistake for the U.S. Government to organize its successful Moon missions without consulting sf fans about the most reasonable approach. Just because NASA's way worked proves nothing.

I find it thoroughly amusing that there are so many experts on 23rd century construction techniques here. The only thing funnier is that some of you are actually getting indignant about your pet 23rd century construction theories.

Dammit, Jim! I'm a Star Trek writer not a rocket scientist!

Star Trek has it wrong, the great wars before TOS weren't over Eugenics, survival or anything else we think. The great wars that nearly destroy Earth will be started by Fanboys who fight over theoretical differences of minutiae from a TV show.

C'mon, the wars are going to be about those who have tried to learn things and make things better vs people enslaved by dogma. Same as ever. If that means Promethean trek fans and people who understand and appreciate science have to knock off a few million creationist-minded, tv-educated scientific illiterates to ensure some kind of future, well, that's a kind of facism I can approve of, like mr Harry Callaghan's brand.

The needs of the few who think oughta outweight the whims of the many.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Relax, Strudel. Just poking.

Yeah, but it's a good poke as far as it goes. I know TOS has a lot of laughable science--I've posted about it and I've been rather tolerant of it in some cases. But c'mon, do we really want to undo one of the few things GR and co. got right? And TGT has shown, again and again, that they got this right.

Once more: the trailer makes for a good, dramatic metaphor but, if it is intended to be a representation of Trek reality, then it is a bad moon rising.

 

[Sector 7]

Letting NASA consult with us geeks might seem like a good idea at first. But unless you're actually a qualified professional in the field, letting the rest of us dictate the terms of the space program is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum .

Jest not, for this is the very foundation of TrekBBS! And how we get away with arguing techinical nuances of hypothetical space vessels.

 

[Sector 7]

It was clearly a mistake for the U.S. Government to organize its successful Moon missions without consulting sf fans about the most reasonable approach. Just because NASA's way worked proves nothing.

I find it thoroughly amusing that there are so many experts on 23rd century construction techniques here. The only thing funnier is that some of you are actually getting indignant about your pet 23rd century construction theories.

Dammit, Jim! I'm a Star Trek writer not a rocket scientist!

Star Trek has it wrong, the great wars before TOS weren't over Eugenics, survival or anything else we think. The great wars that nearly destroy Earth will be started by Fanboys who fight over theoretical differences of minutiae from a TV show.

C'mon, the wars are going to be about those who have tried to learn things and make things better vs people enslaved by dogma. Same as ever. If that means Promethean trek fans and people who understand and appreciate science have to knock off a few million creationist-minded, tv-educated scientific illiterates to ensure some kind of future, well, that's a kind of facism I can approve of, like mr Harry Callaghan's brand.

The needs of the few who think oughta outweight the whims of the many.

Self-righteous Scribes and Pharisees... and we know how that turned out. Not so well.
You sound enslaved to your own dogma. Quite the psychotic rant... very entertaining. I thought "scientific illiterates" was a bit over the top though.
Too bad Star Trek began as a series of morality plays. Much of Star Trek's drama dealt with the issue of right versus wrong, not just science for the sake of science.

 

[trevanian]

Much of Star Trek's drama dealt with the issue of right versus wrong, not just science for the sake of science.

Gee, really, like that thought would never have occurred to anybody on this board.

We're not debating the dramatic validity here. And I'm not talking about a tail-wagging-the-dog science thing, like a tech advisor having too much say on stuff that does affect the storytelling. But no, you see starting from a mildly credible science basis upon which to develop your storytelling as what, too limiting? Not SW enough?

Man, you oughta dig out the Ellison essays on scientific illiteracy -- not just the movie related-ones either. And that was coming from somebody as limited in his scientific knowledge as I am.

 

[M'Sharak]

Man, you oughta dig out the Ellison essays on scientific illiteracy -- not just the movie related-ones either. And that was coming from somebody as limited in his scientific knowledge as I am.

I'm not sure I've read those, but I do love an Ellison essay, or several. I'll assume that they're not available on-line anywhere (I looked anyway, and came up empty); where might I find them?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Man, you oughta dig out the Ellison essays on scientific illiteracy -- not just the movie related-ones either. And that was coming from somebody as limited in his scientific knowledge as I am.

I'm not sure I've read those, but I do love an Ellison essay, or several. I'll assume that they're not available on-line anywhere (I looked anyway, and came up empty); where might I find them?

He also did a television commentary version of that essay for the Sci-Fi channel's Sci-Fi Buzz (I think that was the title).

 

[Saturn0660]

Shields, too. And when they're down, you depend on a hull made of tritanium, not something put together with a welding torch. The welding gag was an excuse to show sparks, an effective marketing thing, as well to grab the attention of those who find welders sexy--another marketing thing.

I rest my sombrero.

So, are Tritanium pieces and parts glued or riveted together?

Neither. This was covered clearly in Minefield, the third episode of season 2 of ENT, when Archer removed a section of hull by hand from the outside after releasing the lockdown mechanisms that held that section in place.

ya, but didn't that part cover some manifold thing? Maybe that section was easily removable to get to whats under it..

 

[M'Sharak]

So, are Tritanium pieces and parts glued or riveted together?

Neither. This was covered clearly in Minefield, the third episode of season 2 of ENT, when Archer removed a section of hull by hand from the outside after releasing the lockdown mechanisms that held that section in place.

ya, but didn't that part cover some manifold thing? Maybe that section was easily removable to get to whats under it..

From episode dialogue (transcript courtesy of Chakoteya):

(Tucker enters the Bridge)
ARCHER: How bad is it?
TUCKER: I can't really tell until we can get into the decompressed sections but I imagine it's pretty ugly. I've got one piece of good news. I did a head count. We didn't lose anyone.
ARCHER: Trip, I'm not sure Malcolm's going to be able to defuse this thing. Couldn't we just detach that section of hull plating? Let it drift away?
TUCKER: We'd have to reroute some EPS conduits. There's about 300 bolt couplings. It could be done.
ARCHER: How long?
TUCKER: Three or four hours. But I wouldn't recommend it, sir. We'd be exposing a good piece of the impulse manifold.
ARCHER: Get a team started. I'll consider it our last resort.

It sounds as if all or most sections may have been able to be removed, but it wasn't something to be done casually or under ordinary operating conditions.

 

[shipfisher]

I'm not sure "TOS:Tomorrow Is Yesterday" is the best ep for proving the 1701 had no anti-grav systems.

Right, and I don't think we can rely on the old "they never mentioned it-therefor it does not exist" argument. Personally, I'm hoping to see some new and awesome stuff in this movie, not a technical journal of TOS technobabble.

In any case, they HAVE artificial gravity. anti-gravity is probably the same thing turned upside-down with the wires crossed. (How's that for scientific predictions?)

Quite likely. You'd think a system that spans every deck of the occuppied volume of the ship could well have a secondary mode for what would be mostly emergency situations when gravitational forces acting on the ship need to be offset.

The fact that the ship is never intended to land on a planet's surface doesn't preclude it having the ability to cope with in atmo or low altitude scenarios when required.

I know Gene R. made reference to "unit components" constructed at the San Fran Yards followed by orbital assembly. What are the unit components - the individual hulls and nacelles? Seems they'd still need anti-grav hefting to orbit (even I'll balk at anything that big being transporter friendly, at least in the TOS era). Any systems benefiting from micro-gravity conditions would probably already be assembled before this point, and if you have the tech to reproduce micro-grav on the ground while retaining the advantages of working in a shirt-sleeve environment, wouldn't that be the go? (we don't see any fully enclosed spacedocks before ST:III, discounting FJ's non-canon Fed HQ, with no indication that even the dock area there is or can be pressurized, though anything's possible I guess)

An all up ground launch would conflict the above, which is essentially a production note, but no on-screen reference, so I suppose it's all a matter of where you draw the line. I'm also quite happy with the trailer sequence being entirely metaphoric by the way. There's a dream sequence feel to it that seems to allow for that whole artistic licence thing, so nothing's probably etched in stone yet in terms of what the gen pub has laid eyes on.

To say we can accurately scan ahead with our early 21st century crystal balls and firmly eliminate any mid-23rd century tech scenario is on par with what late 18th century "technocrats" could predict about what we'd be up to, and that's not allowing for the accelerated pace of many recent technical advances. In 23rd century terms, aren't we all scientific illiterates?

The forty years between TOS and now should allow for a little "wiggle room" in how the future is portrayed. Dogmatic clutching to one set version of "predicted" events is , well, dogmatic clutching.

It's science fiction Jim. Enjoy it.

 

[trevanian]

Man, you oughta dig out the Ellison essays on scientific illiteracy -- not just the movie related-ones either. And that was coming from somebody as limited in his scientific knowledge as I am.

I'm not sure I've read those, but I do love an Ellison essay, or several. I'll assume that they're not available on-line anywhere (I looked anyway, and came up empty); where might I find them?

AN EDGE IN MY VOICE has got some of it, and HARLAN ELLISON'S WATCHING has some also, though most of that is in regard to credibility issues in movies. I think both of those volumes have been collected into the EDGEWORKS series (which combines two previous Ellisons into one big lovely volume), so if you've got good SF stores or good used bookstores nearby, you can probably pick them up for under 20 bucks. Books are heavy, so I'm guessing ebay and shipping wouldn't make it cost effective.

There's a nice one from FUTURE LIFE magazine that has been collected a couple of times, about the original satellite flyby of Saturn in 1980, which he covered at JPL. I think it was in STALKING THE NIGHTMARE at first, but is probably in the new version of EDGE (got a wall of laserdiscs and dvds blocking my one remaining bookcase or I'd give you particulars, honest.)

 

[Sector 7]

You say to-mah-to,
I say to-may-to;
You say po-tah-to,
Quayle says po-tay-toe;
You say fantasy,
He says extrapolation;
Let's call the whole thing off...

Yeah, I liked the friendly banter and debate... but when it gets into name calling and saying the other side are losers, crazy, etc. I'm done.
Bye, bye.

 

[M'Sharak]

Man, you oughta dig out the Ellison essays on scientific illiteracy -- not just the movie related-ones either. And that was coming from somebody as limited in his scientific knowledge as I am.

I'm not sure I've read those, but I do love an Ellison essay, or several. I'll assume that they're not available on-line anywhere (I looked anyway, and came up empty); where might I find them?

AN EDGE IN MY VOICE has got some of it, and HARLAN ELLISON'S WATCHING has some also, though most of that is in regard to credibility issues in movies. I think both of those volumes have been collected into the EDGEWORKS series (which combines two previous Ellisons into one big lovely volume), so if you've got good SF stores or good used bookstores nearby, you can probably pick them up for under 20 bucks. Books are heavy, so I'm guessing ebay and shipping wouldn't make it cost effective.

There's a nice one from FUTURE LIFE magazine that has been collected a couple of times, about the original satellite flyby of Saturn in 1980, which he covered at JPL. I think it was in STALKING THE NIGHTMARE at first, but is probably in the new version of EDGE (got a wall of laserdiscs and dvds blocking my one remaining bookcase or I'd give you particulars, honest.)

Okay, I've got the Edgeworks Volume 1 (Over the Edge and An Edge in My Voice) sitting on my shelf, so that'll give me a place to start (or to return to, in this case -- always a pleasure with Harlan.) I'll make note of the others and see if I can turn them up locally somewhere.

Thanks!

Yeah, I liked the friendly banter and debate... but when it gets into name calling and saying the other side are losers, crazy, etc. I'm done.
Bye, bye.

Slow down, dude, we're still having fun. I think trevanian has got a valid point when he talks about scientific illiteracy, and there's no need to take it as being aimed at you because I'm pretty sure it wasn't intended thus. We've just got a discussion approaching the topic from two distinctly different directions.