Will Trek XI repel old fans?

[Red Ranger]

Blockadrunner, et al.,

I have to say I get tired of the lamentations of the old fans, too, esp. the really inflexible ones who think the only good Trek is TOS. These people won't be satisfied, unless they visit a past alternate Earth where TOS had five or more seasons! Yeesh! (Although that would be interesting!)

Red Ranger

 

[Leroy]

^ I shudder at the thought of five more seasons of TOS under the helm of Fred Freiberger (the man who ruined Space 1999).

 

[Cheapjack]

Having the Enterprise built on Earth is a backwards step.

They thought further ahead than that in the 60's!

 

[JuanBolio]

There simply are no advantages AT ALL for building a ship on the ground, so why would you?

How about not working in an environment that's nearly instantly fatal if you suit's seal or radiation shielding should fail? What about working in a gravity field that's natural for humans, not to mention ship-normal for calibration purposes? There would be a lot of manual and skilled labor involved, probably requiring many specialists who aren't trained to use a space suit and work in free-fall. What about ease of transporting materials and personnel to and from the work site? Transporters probably use huge amounts of power, and that costs something, regardless of the economics of the future.

No, sir - I see nothing contradictory at all in building the major components on the ground, boosting them into drydock with antigrav or some such, and having the final assembly take place there.

 

[3D Master]

There simply are no advantages AT ALL for building a ship on the ground, so why would you?

How about not working in an environment that's nearly instantly fatal if you suit's seal or radiation shielding should fail?

A saucer, or even just a beam, is a whole lot more instantly deadly should whatever keeps it up and in place fail; either will crush you like a bug. In fact, neither a suit's seal or radiation shielding is anywhere near instantly fatal. There's more than enough time to get someone back inside, especially with transporters.

What about working in a gravity field that's natural for humans,

Which is what makes things MORE dangerous, not less, and is a detriment to building ships. The gravity field is a PROBLEM, an OBSTACLE which is why you would NOT want to build there.

not to mention ship-normal for calibration purposes?

Ship-normal is NOT inside of a planet's gravity field, ship-normal is being in SPACE. It is therefore much easier to calibrate a ship while it's being built in space.

There would be a lot of manual and skilled labor involved, probably requiring many specialists who aren't trained to use a space suit and work in free-fall.

No, everyone who would be working on the ship, would obviously be trained to work on it where it's built, namely in space. This is not a problem for us if and when we're going to build our first ships in a spacedock and/or at a space station. For a society for which space is old hat and has been around for two and a half centuries, this is something they wouldn't even be thinking of.

What about ease of transporting materials and personnel to and from the work site? Transporters probably use huge amounts of power, and that costs something, regardless of the economics of the future.

Which is exactly why you want to do it IN SPACE. Most of the materials by then, would be mined from asteroids, or on other planets than where the ship would be built. Why go all the way down to the planet where you're REQUIRED either shuttles or the transporters, if you can just keep it in space at the space dock never having to use them?

No, sir - I see nothing contradictory at all in building the major components on the ground, boosting them into drydock with antigrav or some such, and having the final assembly take place there.

That should no longer be a problem if you've read the above.

Of course, I'd like to point out, that the trailer did NOT show us them building parts and then moving them up (which would be bad enough), but they built THE ENTIRE SHIP on the planet. Which is utterly idiotic.

I can't grasp why people try to defend what the trailer showed us, when they themselves don't agree with and find it ridiculous, by rewriting in their heads what the trailer showed us. I mean, if you have to defend something by first starting "What I have to defend, I can't defend, so I imagine it was something else" you should pretty much know your point is indefensible.

 

[Cheapjack]

'How about not working in an environment that's nearly instantly fatal if you suit's seal or radiation shielding should fail? What about working in a gravity field that's natural for humans, not to mention ship-normal for calibration purposes?'

...the answer to that is that space is not nearly as frightening or dangerous to humans in the 23rd Century as it is to us today. You've got to think 300 years ahead! Suits will have multiple back ups. There may be a force-field screen over the entire dock. Space is a second environment to human in the 23rd Century.

 

[number6]

According to Whitfield's Making of, The 1701 was built on Earth. That's good enough for me. As far as the rest.. when did Star Trek fans become experts in 23rd century(or any other century) starship construction??

The fact that anyone here can actually talk convincingly about how to properly construct a starship and argue for pages about how it is suppiosed to be done is just bizarre and surreal to me.

Tone it down, will ya?

You

 

[Cheapjack]

I think you're confusing San Francisco naval dockyards with Space dockyards.

Science Fiction is supposed to be imaginative, to be good. It's not very imaginative to say space is a fear in the 23rd Century.

 

[JuanBolio]

Of course, I'd like to point out, that the trailer did NOT show us them building parts and then moving them up (which would be bad enough), but they built THE ENTIRE SHIP on the planet. Which is utterly idiotic.

No, no they didn't. They didn't show any part of the ship connected to any other part.

I can't grasp why people try to defend what the trailer showed us, when they themselves don't agree with and find it ridiculous

I don't find it ridiculous at all. It isn't what I would've initially thought, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

Sorry, but despite the dangers of working with heavy loads in a gravity field, working in space is a hundred times more dangerous, and requires its own set of skills that most people who would be involved in building the ship would not possess. Shipyard construction grunts are not spacemen. They're not even frogmen - you don't see submarines being built underwater, do you?

 

[3D Master]

Of course, I'd like to point out, that the trailer did NOT show us them building parts and then moving them up (which would be bad enough), but they built THE ENTIRE SHIP on the planet. Which is utterly idiotic.

No, no they didn't. They didn't show any part of the ship connected to any other part.

I can't grasp why people try to defend what the trailer showed us, when they themselves don't agree with and find it ridiculous

I don't find it ridiculous at all. It isn't what I would've initially thought, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

You don't find building a ship entirely on the ground ridiculous? Then why are you trying to make it look like they're built in big chunks and moved to space?

Sorry, but despite the dangers of working with heavy loads in a gravity field, working in space is a hundred times more dangerous,

Again, no, it isn't. It isn't today, and it'll be even less so in the future.

and requires its own set of skills that most people who would be involved in building the ship would not possess.

Wrong, they would have, they'd be trained to do so.

Shipyard construction grunts are not spacemen.

There are no such things as shipyard construction grunts. There are only highly trained engineers.

They're not even frogmen - you don't see submarines being built underwater, do you?

:sighs: Of course not. Unlike space where there is no gravity and no air, nothing to cause friction that you have to work against, under water has both gravity and an even HEAVIER material, namely water, as apposed to air, to work into. Thus, unlike space, it is far more difficult, costing far more effort and energy and is more dangerous to build something under/in water than on ground. That however, has no bearing on space.

 

[JoeZhang]

Seriously - who cares?

I hope it repels old fans if they think crap like this is important.

 

[JuanBolio]

Dude, spacewalking and zero-G construction isn't justa by-the-way skill you happen to pick up. Its VERY HARD, and VERY dangerous, and many time as exhausting as working on the ground with air around you. Ask any astronaut who's done repair mission spacewalks and he'll tell you the same thing.

If you want a deep labor pool of master builders, laborers and engineers to build your ship, its a good idea to build it in such a way as not to drastically limit the people available to do the job by requiring all to possess a very dangerous and difficult skill that makes every job harder, in addition to their chosen professions.

Then why are you trying to make it look like they're built in big chunks and moved to space?

Because that's how it looks to me, and makes the most sense TO ME. You want to be closed-minded, wildly optimistic about the ease of working in space, and utterly shut out any possible advantages of working on the ground? Fine. You're the one who's limited, not me. I see either one as a possibility, with each having distinct advantages.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

To put it bluntly, this is six of one, half-dozen of the other with regards to building a Starship on the ground and assembling components in orbit, versus building the ship in orbit.

It is all about 300 years ahead of us in terms of technology, and is a major operation either way.

By building it in an appropriate Gravity well, it may be that the Gravity generation systems need a "standard candle" to be configured and adjusted to.

From orbit, that advantage is lost, though there may be simple things to get around it (A weight on a set of scales, turn up the power until the scales say the 20lb weight weighs 20lb perhaps, and doing this in multiple areas on the deck to ensure even distribution, so that people on the Port side don't feel the need to diet while personnel on Starboard feel like Neil Armstrong on the Moon).

Also, Anti-gravity training might be commonplace the way dive training is, but the simple lack of an atmosphere, and the dependence on fallible technology (all technology is fallible) are very real dangers, as any astronaught might be able to attest to.

BTW, for those who want these arguments to be put to rest, I have no doubt that this debate is for the fun of it, because we care about Gene's universe. That's why I'm here. So this debate will continue, and in a spirited way.

 

[seigezunt]

I reject the whole meme that the old fans are against what's going on here.

I'm an old fan, and I can't wait. Largely because of the characters. I lost interest in the franchise over the years, but I can't wait to see my old friends brought back, and how they will be reinterpreted.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

On topic:

Let it.

 

[JuanBolio]

On topic myself - I've been a fan of Trek since I was knee-high to a Hobbit back in the mid-80's. The first Trek I ever saw was TOS, followed not long after by TNG and the original movies. The first movie I ever saw in a theater was STV. I'm not the oldest fan out there, but I ain't a newbie. I love old school TOS better than almost any other Trek.

The direction of this film doesn't worry me. Let there be something new, unexpected, and different, even if it takes liberties with old 'canon'. Old Trek is still there. This new Trek won't invalidate or overwrite it. Enjoy it for what it is, nothing more. Don't go in with preconceptions.

 

[I am not Spock]

I'm a longtime Trekkie, and I am quite excited by the new pics they've released of this film. I used to be more hung up on canon than I am now.

See, I was against the 'rebooted' Casino Royale, until I saw it. And now I can enjoy it, just as much as the other Bond films (which DID NOT disappear off the face of the planet Earth as soon as the reboot came out).

The new film looks exciting. If a couple of details have to go to make it accessible to people again, then so be it.

 

[seigezunt]

I'd add that there are young fans who are being quite negative about this movie (moslty because it's not a TNG movie, I think). So it's not an old fan v. new fan thing.

 

[Qonos]

Of course, I'd like to point out, that the trailer did NOT show us them building parts and then moving them up (which would be bad enough), but they built THE ENTIRE SHIP on the planet. Which is utterly idiotic.

No, no they didn't. They didn't show any part of the ship connected to any other part.

You don't find building a ship entirely on the ground ridiculous? Then why are you trying to make it look like they're built in big chunks and moved to space?

Again, no, it isn't. It isn't today, and it'll be even less so in the future.

Wrong, they would have, they'd be trained to do so.

Shipyard construction grunts are not spacemen.

There are no such things as shipyard construction grunts. There are only highly trained engineers.

They're not even frogmen - you don't see submarines being built underwater, do you?

:sighs: Of course not. Unlike space where there is no gravity and no air, nothing to cause friction that you have to work against, under water has both gravity and an even HEAVIER material, namely water, as apposed to air, to work into. Thus, unlike space, it is far more difficult, costing far more effort and energy and is more dangerous to build something under/in water than on ground. That however, has no bearing on space.

Space also has solar radiation and the astronauts can only work in space for 90 minutes at a time do to that radiation so it would be a nintey minute shift 90 off 90 work it would take decades to build a ship in spaceUnless they had radiation sheilding and then what happens if the sheild system failed due to an emitter malfuction. The work crew would be in danger of being exposed and death.

BTW

[FONT=Verdana]
Bob Hamilton, an Electric Boat spokesman, said Friday that the majority of employees on the project, around 600 workers at its peak, were brought down from the company's Groton and Quonset Point shipyards.

There is no way all 600 of those workers are engineers. They were ending a Submarine refit project and they were all layed off. Yes they learned skills on building subs, but I doubt there were 600 engineers in the group.


I doubt the Trek Fandom will lose the old fans, they just won't be fans of the new movie.
[/FONT]

 

[ancient]

Space also has other problems.

Lighting problems and temperature problems. Every day, your unfinished ship structure would have to withstand a 600 degree temperature change. And workers would have to deal with a shift from absolute darkness to blinding brightness every day. Why put up with months or years of that when you can plop it down in the normal gravity, fairly consistant temp & light of the Earth?

Or you could put the ship in a big warehouse/hangar. Be it on Earth or in space, it wouln't matter at all, aside from a land-based hanger not needing nearly as many support systems.